before the environment court decision no. [2015] nzenvc … · 2017. 3. 26. · introduction these...

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT

Hearing at:

Court:

Decision No. [2015] NZEnvC 100

IN THE MATTER of appeals under Clause 14 of the First

schedule to the Resource Management

Act 1991 (the Act).

BETWEEN

AND

AND

AND

MountMaunganui

Plus site visits

TKC HOLDINGS LTD and MAT AKANA ISLAND INVESTlYffiNT GROUPS LTD

(ENV-2010-AKL-000072)

(ENV-2014-AKL-000075)

BLAKELY PACIFIC LIMITED

(ENV-201 0-AKL-000076)

(ENV-2014-AKL-000081)

CARRUS CORPORATION LIMITED

(ENV-201 0-AKL-000090)

(ENV-2014-AK.L-000079)

Appellants

WESTERN BAY OF PLENTY

DISTRICT COUNCIL

Respondent

4th -7th November 2014

23'd- 26th March 2015

Environment Judge JA Smith

Environment Commissioner JA Hodges

Environment Commissioner SK Prime

Appearances:

2

PH Cooney and SE Wooler for Westem Bay of Plenty District Council (the District Council)

MH Hill for Bay of Plenty Regional Council (the Regional Council)

RE Bmilett QC for TICC Holdings and Matakana Investment (TKC)

VJ I-Im and B Bailey for Cm1us Corp Limited (Can·us)

K E Krumdeick for Heritage New Zealand (Heritage NZ)

JP Koning a11d JN Gear for Tawhao Ngaire Trust, Rangiwaea Marae Trust, and Taingahue FaJnily Trust (the Residents)

TR Fischer for Blakely Pacific Ltd (Blakely)

Date of Decision: 27 May 2015

DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT

A. For the reasons we have described, we modify the Council's Plan Change

46 set out in this Decision and confirm Appendix A subject to the

alterations endorsed in this Decision.

B. We direct the Council to forward to the other parties within 10 working

days a final copy of the document to be incorporated within the District

Plan. Any comments are to be forwarded to the Court, together with the

final plan and the District Council's comments within the 10 working

days for confit·mation by the Court.

C. Costs applications are to be filed within 20 working days, any responses

within a further 10 worldng days thereafter and a further reply (if any)

within 5 worldng days after that.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

These appeals relate to appropriate provisions to be inse1ied in the now

TKC Holdings Ltd & Ors v Western BOP DC (Decision).

3

[2] Matalcana Island (the Island) consists of two parts, distinct both

geographically, geologically and by usage. The eastern part consists of a large

Holocene period sand batTier (the Barrier) between Bowentown and Maunganui,

with the Pacific Ocean to the east and Tamanga Harbour to the west. This barrier is

covered in production forestry. There is a small former mill settlement to the South

that has a few houses. Attached by a thin peninsula, possibly man made, is a large

block of volcanic-sedimentary land on which most islanders live and farm (the

Farmland). Some Islanders work in forestry on the Banier. Access ft·om the

mainland to the Ban·ier can be by barge either via farmland (:fi·om Omokoroa) or at the

southern end of the BatTier at Panepane, (:fi·om the Port ofTauranga).

[3] The appeals concern the provisions appropriate for residential development

on the Barrier. With the exception of the Matakana Island portion of the Plan the

Western Bay of Plenty District Plan is now operative. Plan Change 46 (PC46),

intends to subsume appeals relating to the provisions in the proposed Western Bay of

Plenty District Plan relating to Matalcana Island that have not been withdrawn.

Background

[ 4] The role of this Comt in respect of PC46 is to reach a decision as to which

provisions better accord with the purpose of the Act and the operative Regional and

District documents. In this context the fmmework is contained generally within a

number of different National and Regional policy documents and other Regional

documents, inducting the Regional Coastal Enviromnent Plan in particular.

[ 5] The Western Bay of Plenty District Plan also sets a general fratnework for

the District against which these provisions need to be considered. Having said that, it

was innnediately recognised by all witnesses that Matakana Island, and particularly

the Banier, constituted a different environment to the balance of the Western Bay of

Plenty District.

[6] To avoid confusion we have clearly identified the area of interest, in

particular, in this case as being the Banier which is the Holocene period sand barrier

between Maunganui and Bowentown. PC46 also includes the Matakana Fannland.

The Farmland also includes Rangiwaea Island, separated fi·om the Fannland and the

Banier by water.


4

Blakely Pacific decision

[7) The decision of the Court in Blakely Pacific Limited1 is relevant and of

assistance to the Court in setting the scene for the island and the issues which arise in

respect of it. Although Mr Bartlett suggested that this decision was not relevant to

this appeal, it does contain a number of statements that explain the context of the

PC46 provisions. We note in particular paragraph [30) of the Blakely decision:

In "practical terms" therefore we have concluded that little turns on whether or not the matter proceeds through the WOIP process or the applicants proposed a standdown period of three years after the consent is granted. The essence of this application proceeding is rather to establish a base line from which further concessions can be argued in the WOIP. Not unnaturally the balance of the appellants object to this course on the basis that it pre determines the outcome of the WOIP and does not allow other possibilities to be considered, such as clustering residences in one particular area of the island (perhaps on the barrier island for example near the existing buildings close to the mill) or only on the western farming part of the island. We will come back to revisit this matter later under matters on our overall discretionary assessment.

[8) Similarly paragraph [32) of the decision stated

In terms of effects identified and dealt with in some length by witnesses were

(a) Ecology

(b) Visual amenity and natural character

(c) Archaeology

(d) Natural hazards

(e) Social well being

(f) Cultural matters (including Maori burial places, Taonga, cultural

use and associations with the land, cultural access, customs and

traditions

[9) At paragraph [33)

... We acknowledge there is a degree of interconnection between these elements that to some extent have some degree of overlap. Whilst Blakely Pacific counsel submitted their expert evidence showed that there were no significant adverse effects, it was very clear to us from all the evidence that there are a series of adverse effects identified which were to be addressed in terms of the Plan by a series of complex conditions and

1 [2011] NZEnvC 354


5

management plans. How some of the outcomes recommended by the experts would be achieved was not explained by the end of the hearing.

[10] We make it clear that these comments do not predetennine the outcome of

this hearing. However, in the balance of the Blakely Pacific decision the Court set

out in some extensive detail the type of issues which arise in respect of the Barrier.

The same range of issues was identified in evidence at this hearing. There was no

evidence to suggest to us that the issues addressed by the Court in Blakely Pacific are

not still relevant at the cmTent time.

[11] We aclmowledge that various other plans have been amended or changed

since that time. But there is nothing in that information which indicates that any

issues have abated or are not relevant to a detem1ination of the plarn1ing provisions for

the Barrier and in pa1iicular the process adopted by the District Council.

[12] Given proposed changes to Regional documents (in particu!a1· the Proposed

Regional Coastal Enviromnent Plan) these issues come to be more impmiant.

The process in relation to these Appeals

[ 13] Subsequent to the Blakely Pacific decision, the District Council adopted an

iterative process, working initially with the parties to seek to develop a new set of

preliminary provisions which were then circulated, fmalised a11d notified. The

discussion document was delayed for a number of reasons includiug background

reports required in a whole ra11ge of a1·eas such as ecological features, cultural values

a11d in particular a hapu management plan in October 2012.

[14] The various documents, information and analysis was brought together in a

Whole of Island Plan (the Matakana Plan) which sets out a plamling framework for

the Island. We note the Matakana Plan2 is a non-statutory document that has no legal

power in its own right.

[15] The discussion document for the Matalcana Plan was circulated in February

2013 and the Matakana Plan issued in May 2013 was followed by PC46. Section 32

analysis for PC46 was completed in September 2013, with PC46 decisions by the

Council in April2014; these appeals then followed.

[16] The appeals affect only the Barrier and deal with two significant issues

2 Matakana Island Plan, May 2013, Section 1.2


6

(a) Carrus and TKC seek to liberalise the development potential for residential

housing on the Barrier.

(b) Blakely, although originally seeking wider liberalisation in respect of

development has now reduced its appeal to essentially support the District

Council's position, but seek clarification and protection for the continuation of

production forestry on the Barrier and to ensure no predetermination of the

geographical location of future residential development.

'fhe issues pursued on appeal

[17] It is important to note the parameters of the Court's consideration in this

case. Although several parties strongly opposed any development on the Barrier, no

appeals were filed seeking more stringent controls than those proposed through the

District Council decision process.

[18] All parties are agreed that, as a matter of law, the Court is constrained on

this appeal to a position between that of the District Council decision on PC46 and the

more liberal provisions sought by the appellants: Blakely, TKC and Carrus. Even

then, it is only the grounds of appeal that have not been abandoned in respect of the

original District Council decision on the proposed plan and PC46. We note that

grounds of appeal were reduced or abandoned by the appellants even in closing

submissions.

[19] In its opening Blakely clarified its position in respect of its appeals as

follows:

(Blakely Pacific) supports PC 46, (variation 2) to the e~tent that:

a) It does not materially affect BPL's existing rotational forestry practices·on the island;

b) It provides a regime for the transfer of development rights on the barrier arm of the island;

c) There are no spatial preferences for the development of any particular land holding- that is, with a common policy in rule the framework requires an "effects based" assessment which applies equally to all land holdings.

[20] As we nnderstood Blakely's position, they sought to clarifY the existing

rotational production forestry practices on the Barrier. In particular, to ensure the

provisions are properly interpreted (and subject to clarification) would allow the

continuation of the existing forestry practices. Their suggestions, therefore, were in

. relation to production forestry to clarify some ambivalent provisions within PC46


7

itself. In that regard, Blakely sought a provision for a consenting process relating to

the clearance and replanting of trees to maintain the sheltering and erosion control

functions of the buffer area, particularly in identified areas of the coastal margin. We

discuss this further in our decision.

[21] Carrus' concerns related solely to the question of development on the

Banier, particularly for residential purposes. It suppmis the Matakana Plan process,

but in pmiicular it seeks a higher development cap. In pmiicular, Canus Corporation

has an interest in only 150 hectm·es on the Banier, m1d the application of the cunent

mles would allow it to build perhaps only one residence, unless it obtains transferable

development rights (TDR's), because of the preference for clusters of ten or more

buildings. Can·us, therefore, sought to remove the 1 to 40 hectare development

intensity mle. Development over that level is a prohibited activity under PC46 unless

TDRs me obtained.

[22] Carrus sought a change to the trm1sferable development rights regime and its

planning witness suppmied a special preference for development in the south (as did

TKC's planning witness). Blalcely's position was that there was nothing about the

Cm1Us or TKC lm1d which made it inllerently more or less suitable for the

development than the Blalcely land. Blakely continued to support the Matalcana Plan

outcomes, which might involve development being concentrated to the south if it

meets the needs of the Blakely, T811gata Whenua and other land owners on the

Bmrier. Canus accepts the plan change objectives 811d policies subject to the

=endments agreed through the planning caucusing (which we will address shmily)

811d accepts for the most pmi the rule fr=ework of the plm1, subject to the following

principal exceptions:

(a) The effective cap of 102 dwellings on the sand banier through the

development intensity in excess of one to 40 hectmes being prohibited. They

seek the removal of the cap.

(b) The status for subdivision and development is liberalised. C=s seeks those

provisions be replaced with provisions contemplating non notified, restricted

discretionary or discretionm·y activity subdivision development to a status cap

of200, with non-complying status beyond that.

[23] By the conclusion of the case, the position for TKC had moved; in fact it no

longer supported a southern policy mea overlay. It sought to =end the plan objective


8

and policies by the inclusion of the word 'economic' as agreed by the joint statement

planning experts in respect of Rule 18.3.4. It also sought to provide:

(a) An amended rule for group development accepting the maximum one

hectare lot size;

(b) New provisions providing for common lots and balance lots (there must be

provision for dwellings on the balance lots);

(c) Amend the matters of discretion in 18.5.8 as agreed in the joint statement

of planning experts;

(d) Amend the non-notification clause to limit the parties to be consulted to

those who have been involved in these PC 46 proceedings;

(e) Amend the non-complying activities and Rules 5.4 and 6.5.1 to

discretionary activity rules, which link to the new discretionary activity

rules in patt 18 of the plan, along with links to the assessment criteria

discussed above.

[24] We have stated the outcomes sought by the parties based upon their fmal

submissions to the Comt because they are very different to those in the appeal

documents and the evidence of the witnesses.

Context of Barrier Development

[25] Ms Hamm in her openingJor Carrus noted:

(a) Matakana Island is unique.

(b) Land use options on the sand barrier of the island m·e limited; and

(c) The scale of the whole island and sand barrier are generous at 5800

hectares and 4800 hectares respectively.

[26] In essence, her submission for Carrus was that the driving objectives· of the

WOIP and development can be achieved, by the broad policies and provisions of the

plan, to govern any potential development intensity. Accordingly more pennissive

status activity rules can be adopted.

[27] We have already cited the position sought by TKC, which is somewhat more

focused, but in broad terms we understood would allow the consideration of different

fmms of development to that envisaged in PC46, provided they could also achieve the


9

enviro1m1ental outcomes of the objectives and policies set out m PC46 and the

Matakana Plan.

[28] Some of the concems of both Cmrus and TKC have been addressed by the

expe1t conferencing. In broad tenus the District Council, supported by the Regional

Council, agreed to the majority of the conferencing outcomes, with the exception of a

change to whether the cluster requirement should be stm1dard, a breach of which

would lead to a full discretionmy activity, or its inclusion as a criteria that would

leave the consideration as a restricted discretionmy activity (provided other standmds

were achieved).

[29] As we tmderstand it, the Regional and District Councils agree to a wording

change for Production Forestry with Blakely, which was a broad consensus position

reached in negotiations. We address this shmily.

[30] Finally, we should state that the Court pressed on the pmties that a

comprehensive development approach for the BmTier may be the best outcome for all

pmties, including Tangata Whenua.

[31] In the adjomTUllent between November 2014 and Mmch 2015 some

considerable effo1t was put into this issue, pmticulmly by TKC in an attempt to

generate a solution that might be acceptable to Tangata Whenua. It is importffilt to

note that some of the shmeholding of TKC is held by individual Islanders, a!ld a

proposition agreed to by the shmeholders was put to Tangata Whenua. That

proposition was roundly dismissed by Tangata Whenua by a decisive mm·gin. Carrus

also noted that it had not been a pmty to that proposal, but given that the matter was

not acceptable to the Tangata Whenua, further negotiations did not take place.

[32] Many of the pmties to this case, and the Court, have a general view that the

best outcome for the Bmrier would be one that dealt with all of the development

potential in a comprehensive way. That option is not before the Court, and we must

establish the provisions on the basis of the evidence before us and the decisions

version of the PC46.

Changes that have been agreed

[33] In order to focus the issues remaining in dispute, it is helpful for the Court to

mmex now the proposed changes to PC46. These m·e mmexed hereto as A, and the


10

proposed changes to the planning maps are annexed hereto as Bl to B4. Firstly, Bl to

B4 record the agreed positions and changes agreed between the parties as to various

lines, particularly S25, and the removal of certain features such as MI/3 in the

positions shown. Those matters were agreed by the ecologists, and given the level of

consensus the Court approves those changes.

[34] Some changes were made by the District Council decision; these are

included and marked in red in A. These include a statement added to the opening and

changes to Chapter 5; 5.4.2, 5.4.3, and 5.4.4 and Criteria 5.6.2. There are changes in

Chapters 6; 6.4.1, 6.4.3, 6.4.3. 6.4.4, 6.4.5, 6.6 and 6.6.2, all of which we do not

understand to be in dispute.

[3 5] Changes to the District Plan were made by the District Council following

the hearing of PC46. Further changes were made as a result of planners' expert

conferencing. Both sets of changes are included in Annexure A, presented by counsel

for the District Council towards the end of the hearing. We note that the deletion of

18.4.l(d)(iv) was not accepted by the Cotmcil, and we will discuss this further.

[36] In Chapter 5 and 6 we understand there to be disputes around the status of

subdivision and development as well as matters of notification and status of non

complying rather than prohibited for intensity over the cap.

[37] In respect of Chapter 18, the disputes are more extensive, although they tend

to relate to the question of transferable development rights, status of activities and the

relevant criteria, either by way of standards or assessment crite1ia. The major changes

that have been agreed between the experts relate to 18.5.8. As we understand it, this

wording is preferred by the District Council supported by the Regional Council.

[3 8] In addition to this, we understand that the District Council, with the

agreement of the Regional Council, is also in agreement with the insertion of a new

5.4.3(c). Submissions on behalf of Blal{ely Pacific Limited, paragraph [30] which

provides on Matai{ana Island:

The clearance and replanting of production forestry in existence as at the 17 of April 2014 for the purpose of maintaining the form and function of the existing forest and buffer area, that is certified by a suitably qualified ecologist as meeting the following:

i. Preservation of the ecological functions and values of the activity site;


II

ii. A plan for replanting following clearance so as to preserve the buffer functions of the area;

iii. Where i. cannot be met, the worl<s are carried out subject to a management plan that is the best practicable option for preserving the ecological functions and values and minimising adverse effects on those values.

[39] A consequential change to 5.4.5 prohibited activities would read: (c)

productionforestly not covered in 5.4.2 and 5.4.3(c). This would then mean that any

application would be a full discretionary application, which is a compromise position

from Blakely's point of view and the District Council's point of view. As we

understand it, those changes would satisfy Blakely's concerns in its appeal, provided

the appeal did not affect its interests in development.

[ 40] The next major change is related to clustering. This arises in two ways:

(a) Status issues arise given the wording of 18.3.4(s) which provides for discretionary activities: Subdivision dwellings and development associated with the clustering of dwellings on the Matakana Island forested sand barr.ier that fails to comply with the activity pe1jormance standards listed in 18. 4, provided that in respect of rule 18.3.6 an overall density of one dwelling per 40 ha is not exceeded

(b) Clustering is also provided as a development standard for restricted discretionary dwellings and associated subdivision 18.4.1(d) and 18.4.2(i)

18.4.1(d) relates to clustering of dwellings on the Barrier; 18.4.2(i) relates to clustering oflots on the Banier.

[41] In relation to 18.3.4(s) the District Council acknowledges this is not

intended to preclude non-cluster or linear development and make them non

complying. A simple solution suggested was to amend 18.3.4(s) by removing the

reference to clustering. All parties accepted that this was within the appeal scope.

Accordingly, we have determined that the word clustering may properly be removed

from 18.3.4(s), and a distinction still properly drawn between various forms of

development should the cap be removed.

[ 42] The cap of 102 dwellings is a calculation based upon allowing development

at one house per 40 hectares less the existing housing (approximately). It is intended

to use a control mechanism to allow development by basing this upon the principle of

one transferable right per 40 hectares i.e. a minimum of 40 hectares is required for one


12

house, another 40 hectares for a TDR which is required for each subsequent house.

This is a mechanism utilised to achieve density of development.

[43] Carrus complained that this is unfair on them as a small landowner with the

potential only to develop three houses on their available land without purchasing

TDRs. This may still require non-complying consent, as it was a cluster of less than

10 houses. Without a cap, of course, it would be possible for any landowner to apply

to develop housing at the minimum lot size, and all of the available capacity might be

absorbed by one or two smaller landowners, and the larger landowners then being left

with no development potential.

[ 44] The issue about whether clustering should be a standard or criteria is a core

issue for this decision which we will address later.

Overview

[45] It was clear to us that, from all of the issues raised in evidence in this case

(and gone through in some detail in the Blakely Pacific decision), the range of

environmental, ecological, cultural and archaeological matters militate towards a

conservative approach to development on the Banier.

[46] To create an environment where owners can apply with no mechauism for

allocation such as TDR's would simply lead to a gold rush mentality seeking to

maximise development, particularly for smaller landowners. For example Mr Boffa

was of the view that the Barrier could only tolerate something in the order of 60 to 653

houses. Others had a view that this may depend where housing was placed, whether

in linear fashion, cluster fashion, centrally to the Barrier, or upon its edges.

[47] Removal of the TDR provisions was strongly opposed by Blakely. They

perceive such a proposal as depriving them of development potential of their land,

given their commitment at the current time to productive forestry.

[ 48] Fundamentally, we conclude there is no benefit or justification - (cost or

otherwise) - to incentivising small developers to develop their land over larger

landowners. We agree entirely with Blakely that there was no evidence given that

satisfies us that there is any locational preference between the lands owned by the

various landowners as to where housing should be situated. We agree entirely that the

3 EIC, Frank Boffa, paragraph 51.


13

matter should be determined on the design, placement and relevant conditions to

satisfy the District Council, or the Environment Court on appeal, that the development

was appropriate.

[49] There are a significant number of issues to be overcome including the

relationship with production foresiTy, fire risk, roading, impact on ~cological zones

and water. We agree with M:r Bmilett that these matte:rs are not di:rectly relevant to

the settling of the plan provisions, but they do show the need for a cautious approach

to development on the Barrier, undertaken in an ordered fashion.

[50] Whether the Cm1us proposition of the removal of the cap would affect

TDRs is a moot point, given it is not clear how development would then be

considered if it was not on the basis of lot size. We also understand that in closing, no

party was pursuing the southern area on the island in preference for development, and

accordingly it is no longer within the scope of our hearing.

[51] We conclude that there is no proper basis given to us to suggest that the

removal of the cap and the TDR mTangement would be a better arrangement for

development of the Barrier; it would simply incentivise smaller landowners and lead

to pressure from larger landowners to have equivalent rights.

[52] When we come to examine questions of what arrangements are bette:r, we

look at impacts not only on the economic costs of the developer, but also to the other

values which could be compromised. In this case those values are coll1111only

accepted by all parties and are set out in terms of the PC46.

Limited notification

[53] The proposition that applications for consent should be linllted notification

in such circumstances is frankly surprising to this Court, and was without any proper

basis, evidential or otherwise. The suggestion that all the issues had been canvassed

in the Matakana Plan m1d PC46 is patently not conect. Although a number of issues

were addressed in the Blakely Pacific Decision, the Court was not satisfied that, in

that case, these issues had been adequately addressed in the evidence of the parties,

and considered that much greater attention to detail would need to be given to have a

proposition that would have a prospect of success.


14

[54] Even though an application might be a restricted discretionary or full

discretionary activity under PC46, the same type of issues will arise. Given there is

no roading access on the Banier for example, access continues to require close

attention. Fire risk from vehicles and fire risk generally from housing, as well as tree

fall areas and the like all become directly relevant to consent applications.

[55] In respect of the nmihern area, cultural issues and significant archaeological

issues came to the fore in the Blakely Pacific decision as various sites were examined.

It is inevitable in consideration of any development in the southern part of the Banier

that archaeological enquiry will yield further discoveries. Though fewer

archaeological sites are shown in the southern area, it has not been surveyed to the

same extent. Nevertheless we are satisfied from our visit to the area, that there are

likely to be numerous archaeological and other sites of cultmal importance within the

southern part of the island which will need be addressed and have input from Tangata

Whenua.

[56] We note, also, that tl1e Southern part of the island has been subject to

different erosional forces over the years. Geological mapping shows different

formations both in terms of the dunes and in terms of ground height. Moreover the

exact extent of habitat of flora and fauna in this area and the connectivity between

various areas has also not been the subject of extensive study.

[57] In the circumstances, we would consider that the removal of the notification

consideration by the District Council to be a significant derogation of public rights.

It would suggest that the only pariies tlmt should be notified are those that were

parties to these proceedings. With respect, that seems to be a significant proposition.

Many parties would have been satisfied with the District Council's approach to

subdivision, and satisfied that particular impacts of an application would be

considered by the District Council at the time an application was made. We do not

see any connection between the PC46 process undertaken and the subsequent

notification of applications for consent.

Matters of National Importance

.. ' [58] To understand the context in which this hearing was taldng place we need tci

· · refer to the various overlays for coastal envirolllllent, natural landscape, natural

character and ecological areas. There was a significant dispute as to whether or not


' '

15

the whole of the Banier is an outstanding natural landscape or an outstanding natural

feature.

[59] For current purposes, the Cotmcil mea of shoreline largely co-extensive with

S25 rs identified in vmious Regional documents and in the District Council

docnments as having special values relating to outstanding natural character and

natmal features and natural landscape. The Significant Ecological Feature (SEF)

Matakana 1 partly overlays S25, with values relating to matters such as ecological

functioning, habitat, and connectivity issues, and extends further inland in a number

of places. The Barrier is the largest Holocene created sand barrier in the southern

hemisphere and, some suggested, the only one that was undeveloped. Of comse, the

production forestry companies see development as having occurred with the planting

of radiata pine. This led to considerable debate as to the effect of exotic forestry upon

the Barrier landscape or natmal values, given its creation in the Holocene period ar1d

the relative rarity of a featur·e of this size.

[ 60] The Operative Regional Coastal Envirolllllent Plan identifies the Banier as a

regionally but not nationally significm1t natural feature and landscape. The Proposed

Regional Coastal Envirolllllent Plm1 (Proposed Coastal Plan) has identified the

Banier as an outstanding natmallandscape. That is a matter which is CUlTently tl1e

subject of submissions to the Regional Cour1cil, and submissions have yet to be

considered. In respect of the Proposed Coastal Plan, by the end of the hearing the

parties had agreed that this issue should not be addressed by the Decision of the

Comt, given it may need to determine the substantive issue as part of the Proposed

Coastal Plan process. We conclude that, in the event, it is not necessary for us to

consider that issue because:

a) some level of development is permitted on the BmJier, outside the

cUlTently identified s25 and Matakm1a 1 features (and as it is variously

recognised in the Regional Policy Statement and the Operative Coastal

. Plan);

b) appropriate development may not conflict with any outstanding values

recognised subsequently; and

c) if necessary, the District Council can introduce a Plan Change to fulfil its

obligations to achieve and be consistent with the Regional Policy

Statement and any new Operative Coastal Plan.


16

Development in overlay areas

[ 61] As the case developed, it became clearer that the intent of TKC in seeking to

include lots within the S25 landscape and Matakana 1 SEF was not to build in the S25

feature, but to manage the featme as part of the development. As the case progressed,

it became clearer that the ecological objectives of managing these highly sensitive

areas might be addressed better on a wider basis. However it is clear from the

Indicative Development Plan dated 13 March 2015 presented at the hearing that TKC

was proposing to build within the Matakana 1 SEF.

[62] Accordingly, mechanisms for the creation of a large lot without any

buildings in the coastal margin could achieve the same outcome without the difficulty

of allowing subdivision within the highly sensitive natural areas immediately

alongside the coast. Given the provisions of the New Zealand Coastal Policy

Statement and the Regional Policy Statement, and Operative and Proposed Regional

Plans, including S25 or Regional overlays within development lots as a

restricted/discretionary activity was not pmsued in the fmal submissions for TKC or

Carrus. TKC's position on buildings within Matakana 1 SEF was not so clear.

[63] For the sake of clarity, we have concluded that the evidence is

overwhehning. Subdivisions should not be permitted, generally, within highly valued

areas including both S25 and Matalcana 1, or areas included in the various Regional

Policy and Plan documents as well. All parties recognised that a non-complying

subdivision might be justifiable if it was for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing

areas with high values, and on this basis we consider that a cautionary approach to

building within them is essential. We have concluded that the PC46 non-complying

activity status is appropriate for these sensitive areas.

[64] Given the RMA provisions relating to esplanade reserves, it may be that

such areas may be taken as esplanade reserves on subdivision in any event. The

District Council did not seem to reject out of hand the potential for conservation lots;

essentially to be created in respect of these areas (provided they were not part of

residential development). In saying that, this does not mean that they could not have

common ownership, or the owners of residential lots might not be shareholders within

such landholding. Under PC46 such an activity would be non-complying.


17

Baseline

[65] The next issue, which we wish to deal with briefly, is whether or not the

removal of trees within these overlays is a permitted activity and thus forms a baseline

consideration for the District Plan provisions. In distinction to resomce consent, the

Comt is not obligated to consider any particular baseline, and a plan can intend to

change existing uses. Clearly, Section 6 matters of national impmtance are key

considerations under the Act, and any changes to maintain and to enhance these areas

would have to be seen as positive.

[ 66] Om overall view is that the appropriateness of residential development and

subdivision within the coastal buffer does not need to be determined in this Decision

for the pmposes of deciding on the provisions in relation to development. The reason

that we have reached tl:lls conclusion is that no patty seeks the development provisions

include lands within S25 at·eas. It is not necessat·y to determine that issue in order to

resolve these appeals. Suffice to say that the changes sought by Blakely seek to

clarify production forestry in these at·eas for the sake of both parties in the futme.

[ 67] By the end of the heating no party was seeking to build within the buffer

area generally coextensive with S25. However, it is unclear whether pmties were

seeking to build within Matalcat1a 1 Significant Ecological Featme. This area deviates

substm1tially in1at1d in places. We have concluded that we must assUI11e that TKC, at

least, is seeking provision for dwellings within Matakana 1 SEF as discretionary

activities.

Clusters versus Linear development

[68] A great deal of evidence was addressed, by TKC witnesses in pariicular,

towards the proposition that cluster development was not as desirable as linear

development, and that better outcomes could be acl:lleved by allowing development

along the coast. Witnesses such as Mr Scott and Mr Boffa gave evidence on this

subject. We accept that, with careful thought and extensive conditions, it n:llght be

possible to develop a project that would have better environmental outcomes than

those which n:llght achieve consent under the cluster (restricted discretionary)

provisions of the plan. The question, then, is what status would such provisions on

alternative approach have?


18

[ 69] It seems to us that it must follow that there would need to be a greater

environmental outcome to compensate for more of the coastline being utilised. There

are issues of visibility from both Bowen town and Maunganui, together with potential

impacts on the coastal environment, including potential erosion and/or effects on the

contiguous habitats of flora and fauna, and access issues. Overall, we conclude that

linear development, although possible, would require very close consideration of

multiple issues. We have concluded that there is clear basis for the Council's decision

to prefer clustering as a restricted discretionary activity.

[70] We have concluded on wording changes to 18.3.4(s) that would mean linear

development would have full discretionary status. We put aside for the moment the

question of limited notification, also sought by Carrus and TKC. This would mean

that development that complied with the activity performance rules, but was not

clustered, would then have to consider the full range of discretionary issues, whereas

that which was clustered would be considered as a restricted discretionary activity.

[71] We conclude the evidence on tllis issue was decisive, including Ji-om the

expe1is called for the Appellants. Particular consideration needs to be given to impact

on the coastal environment and outstanding . values in areas of overlay in any

application. As a matter of fact, we conclude that there must be greater exposure to

coastal values by linear development along tl1e coast, rather than clustering. This

raises a range of issues that need to be specifically and comprehensively addressed.

In tllis regard, we accept the evidence of Mr Boffa and Mr Scott. Accordingly full

discretionary status is clearly preferable to restricted discretionary status.

[72] We do not say that these matters are insurmountable, but they will require

particular consideration. Much of the commentary about whether better outcomes

nlight be achieved from linear development seem to tum on a view that the Dune

Land values, although recognised as outstanding- both in ecological terms and natural

character terms - nevertheless are not as high as indigenous vegetation values. We

conclude the Dune Land values are recognised in terms of the various plans. These

are the values that must be protected. The Act does not provide for, or suggest, that

parties are able to substitute a new set of outstanding values and protect those instead.

[73] We conclude that any linear development is better considered as a full

discretionary activity. Thus we would continue to include clustering as a performance

standard, the breach of which makes the development fully discretionary.

· TKC Holdings Ltd & Ors v Western BOP DC (Decision).

.. ~~. ..

;.,

19

The cm·rent constraints and alternatives

[74] In summary, the District Piau's overall approach is to use planning controls

as necessary on a step by step basis as follows:

(a) Development of residential lots above 102 is a prohibited activity and thus

would require a plan change before any further liberalisation could be

considered. Blakely and TKC do not address this category and are not

seeking for it to be au1ended. CmTUs seeks that the cap be increased to 200

as a discretionm'Y activity and over 200 as a non-complying activit'Y.

(b) In relation to development within the cap, the District Council has operated

upon the basis of TDRs at the rate of 1 to 40 hectares. Again, Blakely m1d

TKC do not dispute that approach, whereas CmTUs seeks to have no

particular linkage to TDRs. We remain confounded as to what altemative

mechmlism they propose, other than first come fust served.

(c) As to development rights themselves, the Council adopts a stepped

approach, with restricted discretionary activity status for those activities

meeting the standards. Importantly, tllis includes a standal'd for clustering.

Although, originally, the plarmers had agreed to the cluster provision being

moved to the criteria, Mr Cooney, in closing, continues to support

clustering as a performance standard for restricted discretionary

developments. We have already concluded that clustering should remain a

performance standard.

[75] Any application not meeting the perfmmauce staudal'ds would be a full

discretionm·y activity, and non-complying witllin areas of overlay particularly the S25

and Matakaua 1 overlays. This would consequently make non clustered development,

oilierwise meeting the performance standards as a full discretional'y activity, provided

that it is outside the overlay (S25 and Matakaua 1) areas. Although TKC originally

sought that activity within the S25 overlay would have a restricted or discretionary

status, that position was dropped in fmal closing. TKC seems to now seek

discretionary status of dwellings or development that are outside S25 but within the

Matakaua 1 SEF.

[76] We conclude iliat such a position is unsustainable. It depends upon the view

that certain parts of Matakaua 1 SEF, particularly the dunelauds, m·e of lesser

ecological value. Given that the overlay Matakaua 1 SEF is not in dispute, we


20

conclude 6( c) militates to PROTECTION of this identified area. We conclude that

discretionary consents are not appropriate for development within the Matakana 1

SEF overlay any more than it is within S25.

[77] Both Carms and TKC seek that activities that are restricted discretiomu:y or

discretionary would be on a limited notification basis. We rejected this proposition

earlier. Carrus originally sought that activities within the increased cap of 200 would

be a controlled activity, but by the end of the hearing there seemed to be an

acceptance that this should remain at least discretionary on a limited notification

basis. We understand that residential development or subdivision within the overlay

areas would remain non-complying. However Canus sought development over the

cap be non-complying too.

[78] We have already discussed in general terms the values on the Banier,

without reiterating the contents of the Blakely case in extensive detail. The Court is

loath to use the word unique but this Barrier Island is of considerable impmiance.

This is not only because of its geological formation but because of the relative lack of

any development upon it and the ecological values, and archaeological and cultural

values we have identified. These matters are recognised, not only in the Regional

Policy Statement and relevant Plans, but in tl1e District plan generally.

[79] The question for this Court is what is the most appropriate way to achieve

the purpose of the Act and to ensure that the District plan is not inconsistent with any

regional or national document? The provisions we are now talking about represent

possible positions within the spectrum available, and the question we have to address

is what is the most appropriate method under Section 32(1)(b)(i)? The practical

options in this case relate to the question of prohibited, non complying, discretionary

and restricted discretionary status, and the contents of the criteria and standards that

might apply for development.

[80] Having considered all of the evidence we have concluded that the position

adopted by the District Council is one properly open to it in terms of all the superior

documents and Section 32 of the Act. The conclusion of this Court is that the

provisions are relatively liberal given that the actual possibility of developing lots at

the rate of one to 40 hectares on this island is questionable (see Blakely Pacific

decision), particularly because of the lack of a public roading system. Neve1iheless,

the Council has sought to address the development potential by retaining restricted


21

discretion and consider applications to ensme that archaeological, cuhural, ecological

and other environmental constraints in respect of the island are addressed.

[81] We did not understand any expert witness to essentially dispute that

proposition in broad terms. The questions therefore are:

(a) Can the island accommodate greater intensity, keeping in mind the potential

to impose environmental benefits by way of offset and look towards overall

environmental gains?

(b) Should a more liberal status be adopted for consideration of applications to

encourage pmties to such an outcome?

832 Analysis

[82] Section 32(1)(b) requires the Comt to exmnine the efficiency and

effectiveness of the provisions in achieving the Objectives of the Plan. In respect of

the TDR cap mechanism, we are unable to find any efficient or effective alternative

that would ensme that development only occtmed to m1 acceptable level, or on an

equitable basis. The proposition of encomaging a gold rush for consents is not m

appropriate outcome for the District Plm1 or under Pmt 2 of the Act. We see

significant efficiency and effectiveness in the TDR cap methodology for the following

reasons:

(a) It is likely that the two major landholders will look towards some form of

comprehensive use of their TDRs, a!ld this militates towards a more complete

a!ld thorough investigation of the full rmge of issues which would arise. In

comparison, smaller developments have more difficulty addressing some of

the more significa!lt issues on the isla!ld such as vehicle access, fire risk,

· ecological enha!lcement a!ld the like.

(b) The TDRs.create a rational basis for the allocation of development rights.

Given Mr Boffa's view that the isla!ld would accommodate 65 to 70 lots, it

might be seen as overly generous. Neve1theless, there is no compulsion for

the major lMdholders to utilise all of their development rights, and it is more

likely in those circumsta!lces that a!1 acceptable environmental outcome cm be

achieved by balMcing the development rights in relation to a particular

proposal.


22

(c) In terms of broad fairness, smaller landholders cannot generally expect greater

development rights than larger landholders, all tbings being equal. We do not

accept the proposition that the Carrus land has some inherent advantage over

that of Blakely or TKC, and accordingly it appears to us that the TDR is a fair

method of allocation based upon a mechanism long recognised throughout the

Western Bay of Plenty District Council area generally, of one house per 40

hectares. Its applicability to Matalcana milY have been questionable, but it is

not tbe subject of an appeal. Any argument has sought a more conservative

provision rather than a more liberal mechanism.

[83] We have therefore concluded that a cap of 102 by use of a 40 hectares TDR

mechanism is the appropriate method for use on this island.

[84] When we look at the question of benefits and costs, it is our view that the

costs in terms of ecological, visual, cultura),, archaeological and other matters are

clearly in favour of a conservative position for development on the Banier. Although

there may be some benefit to land owners from the ability to diversify their land use,

long term costs of that are reflected in the introduction of residential development into

an area which has previously been production forestry.

[85] In our view the coastal and ecological overlays (including 825 and

Matakana 1 SEF) are entirely appropriate to identifY particulm constraints on the

Barrier. We conclude that a status of non-complying for any subdivision or

development incorporating such an overlay is appropriately non-complying. Any

consent including these meas will need to carefully consider the matters under 86 of

the Act in particular to ensure that the relevant values me fully addressed. This

justifies non-complying status.

[86] We can see no compelling mgument that there are economic, social and

cultural benefits of more intensive development that outweigh the significant costs

identified by all parties. To that end we conclude the question of economic growtb

and employment are mmginal at best, and short term compmed to the continuing

utilisation of production forestry.

[87] Section 32(2)( c) requires us to assess the risk of acting or not acting. We

must keep. in mind that we are dealing here with development within a relatively

constrained scope. However given the significant values at play, it is clear the Court

should adopt a cautious approach to ensure tbat any development which occurs is


23

appropriate and maintains or enhances the enviromnental, cultural, social and

archaeological values of the island. We conclude that this precludes controlled

activity status. It is likely that a restricted activity status would address most of these

issues. Sections 32(2) and ( 4) do not add any particular issues arising in respect of

this Plan Change.

[88] In the end, we have fi·equently fi·amed the overall test under Section 32 as to

which provisions better meet the pmpose of the Act.

[89] We have already discussed a change that would allow restricted

discretionary activities where they involved clustering and discretionary activities for

those outside the standards (which would include a linear application). We conclude

that such a provision will enable all relevant issues to be addressed in an appropriate

way to the extent to which this Court has jmisdiction to make a decision. Where

applications for development or subdivision involve ecological, natural character or

landscape values, such as within the S25 or Matal<ana 1 SEF areas, the activity would

remain non-complying. We conclude that is entirely appropriate to emphasise the

cautionary approach which should be adopted in considering any S6 issues. Where an

application within the S25 or Matal<ana 1 SEF areas was simply to maintain or

enhance the area, i.e. by predator proofing, weed and pest control etc then such

consent is likely to be granted. However, it would clearly mark a preference for any

subdivision or development to avoid areas of particular value.

[90] We have already addressed limited notification and dismissed this as

inappropriate. Similarly we discussed the possibility of non-complying status or

discretionary status beyond the development cap. In tenns of s32 we conclude the

prohibition avoids pmiies' in inclll1ing costs and time in applying for development.

Moreover, it reinforces the pattern of increasing complexity given by the changing

status of residential development.

Conclusion

[91] Our role is to select provisions that better meet the pmpose of the Act in this

case. We conclude that the provisions that better address the pmposes of Part 2 and

s32 of the RMA, and the objectives and policies of the National, Regional and District

Plan( s) are those adopted by the District Council with the =endments we have made.


24

[92] In that regard, we conclude that the values of the Barrier need to be

protected and addressed in applications for consent. The terms of PC46 do not

suggest that these values are in any sense absolute or sacrosanct, but need to be

considered on a case by case basis as to .whether the consent is appropriate. That

process involves the District Council malcing a decision as to notification on a case by

case basis to ensure that the relevant interests are properly addressed as required.

[93] We see no basis on which limited notification should occur or that the

District Council should be further constrained in the range of matters that it addresses

with the clarification of 8.3.4(s) to remove the word clustering. We consider that this

gives a graduated response by the Council to applications for consent. We agree that

there are lilcely to be benefits from clustering in terms of impacts on features and

values, roadiug, clearance and the lilce. Nevertheless, we accept that if an application

is able to demonstrate that it can achieve the objectives and policies of the District and

Regional Plans, it may be considered by the Councillors as full discretionary outside

overlay areas. Within the overlays areas a non-complying status is justified.

[94] We agree entirely with the District Council, that prohibition beyond the 1 to

40ha TDR is an appropriate and even necessary methodology in this particular case.

It serves a particular purpose of limiting the potential impact upon the values of the

Barrier, and preventing umeasonable expectation or doubt having particular regard to

the cultural and other issues which would ar·ise with higher number of houses.

[95] We conclude, in this case, that the District Council ·has given adequate

reasons as to why they have adopted this approach, and we agree entirely that the

circumstances of this case warrant that approach. We note that the cap itself is not

part of the document; it is simply a consequence upon the development rights that

arise in terms of the 1 to 40 hectare rule and the TDR's. Whilst we recognise that

smaller land owners have less ability to develop their property, this is in accordance

with the balance of the Western Bay of Plenty District Plan.

Outcome

[96] For the reasons we have described, we modify the Council's Plan Change 46

as set out in this Decision, and confirm Appendix A subject to the alterations endorsed

in this Decision.

J'KC Holdings Ltd & Ors v Western BOP DC (Decision).

25

[97] We direct the Council to forward to the other parties within 10 working days

a final copy of the document to be incorporated within the District Plan. Any

comments are to be forwarded to the Comt, together with the final plan and the

District Cotmcil's comments within the 10 working days for confirmation by the

Comt.

Costs

[98] Costs applications are to be :filed within 20 working days, any responses

within a further 10 worldng days thereafter and a further reply (if any) within 5

working days after that.

. 9.. 7 J.- 1"\ SIGNED at AUCKLAND this .................... day of .............. 5 .. 2015

For the Court

TKC Holdings Ltd & Ors v Western BO_P DC (Decision).

Proposed Changes to: Section 3 - Definitions

"Production Forestry" means the management of land for commercial wood production

including the extraction of timber therefrom and the reolanting of trees but does not include

the milling or processing of timber.

•'

d ,j

, Western Bay of P/enl]r // trfS[ffM Gm!Biiff

Section 5 - Natural Environment: Contents

5. Natural Environment ........................................................................................... 7

Explanatory statement ................................................................................................... 7

5.1 Significant Issues ................................................................................................ 8

5.2 Objectives and Policies ...................................................................................... 10

5.3 Applicability ...................................................................................................... 11

5. 4 Activity Lists ..................................................................................................... 11

5.5 Information Requirements ................................................................................. 11

5.6 Matters of Discretion ......................................................................................... 13

5.7 Other Methods .................................................................................................. 14

·. This document shows the proposed changes to Section 5 - Natural Environment as a result of:

a) Western Bay of Plenty District Council decisions on District Plan Variation 2/Pian Change 46 - Matakana Island (shown in red underline for inserts and reEf strikethrough for deletions). ·

b) Agreed changes as included in the Joint Expert Caucusing Statements (shown in green underline for ins.erts and green strikethrou§ft for deletions).

13 November 2014 Section 5 - Natural Environment 1

.,

Natural Environment.

5. Natural Environment

Explanatory Statement

, Western Bay of Plenty --,./ tf!sffrb.;ff iJmtnGiff

The primary objective of the Natural Environment Section is to promote the sustainable management of the remaining natural environmental resources of the District(plants, animals, habitats and ecosystems).

The Council has a responsibility under the RMA to recognise and provide for the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna as a matter of national importance s6(c). Council also has a wider responsibility to maintain and enhance ecological values within the District using a mix of regulatory and non regulatory methods.

The Natural Environment Section relates to the areas marked on the District Planning Maps and listed in Appendix 1 as Significant Ecological Features but can be used as a guide for assessing other ecological sites through the resource consent process. Any activity assessed under the Natural Environment Section also needs to be assessed under the relevant rules that apply to the underlying zone.

The majority of the features that have been identified are from the original District Plan and were subject to an Environment Court decision. The sites were assessed in terms of both fauna (animal life) and flora (plant life).

The Significant Ecological Features have been classified into four major habitat types being native forest, wetlands, stream/river margins (riparian), and the coast. However, there are exceptions to this general classification where a significant native habitat worthy of protection falls within other areas.

The. emphasis on habitats and ecosystems rather than protection of individual species arises out of the land use related responsibilities of Council. While Council has to focus on the land based component; the protection of habitats and ecosystems indirectly achieves the objective of species protection.

An assessment of the actual and potential effects on the Significant Ecological Feature is required for any activity or development carried out within or adjacent to a Significant Ecological Feature.

Existin§ tlse rights may aJ3J3ly in relation to the management of stee1E--13y lando~·mers. The FO!es in the District Plan do not eOmJ3ulsoril·t require feneing !Jy landowners. Existing use riohts apply. These include farm management and the management of other land currently used for production forestry, woodlots. and quarries.

13 November 2014 Section 5 - Natural Environment '7!

Council aims to work with both landowners and other agencies including the Regional Council and the Department of Conservation to protect and enhance ecological areas within the District

Council utilises a number of methods outside of the District Plan to achieve this. The Regional Council environmental management plans are one of these methods, whereby funding is available for environmental protection and restoration projects in the District This enables work to be carried out to restore areas of ecological significance resulting in benefits for the wider community.

The District Plan also provides additional subdivision opportunities where Significant Ecological Features are legally protected and managed in perpetuity.

Other formal protection instruments may also be involved with the protection of the natural environment. These include the Regional Council Environmental Programmes, Tasman Accords, QEII and other covenants. Activities associated with these protective measures are allowed as of right.

The matter of the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, rivers and lakes and their margins is a combination of variables that are separately addressed in the District Plan. In particular, issues relating to natural character are addressed in this Section (Natural Environment), Section 6 (Landscape), Section 8 (Natural Hazards) and Section 12A (Esplanades) and should be referenced accordingly.

As well as those Ecological Significant Features listed in the District Plan, there are other ecological features in the District that are not listed because they have been given a lower ecological ranking. This lower ranking however, does not mean that such features are not environmentally important nor worthy of protection by other than regulatory methods.

Significant Ecological Features may be located on multiple owned Maori land. In these instances Council recognises the contribution of iwi management plans.

5.1 Significant Issues

8

1. Significant remaining indigenous native forest, wetlands, riparian, and coastal habitats are under threat from human-induced activities including animal and plant pests.

2.

3.

There are areas outside those listed as significant in the District Plan that may also be important in terms of ecological value and may be a habitat for native species. These areas are also under threat from a range of activities.

The natural environment provides us with a range of ecosystem services on which we are dependent. These include the provision of freshwater, air, fertile soils, riparian protection and flood control.

Section 5 - Natural Environment 13 November 2014

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

rJ,'.J:-...

<fi! A' , Western Bavot Plen!Ir ·<ft ..... :.·;:~;_:·u;;;- J>uaafi!

These processes and values can be taken for granted and should be considered when assessing the value of such natural resources.

The extent of indigenous habitats is diminishing and there is inadequate protection of the remaining areas. Lowland and coastal habitats tend to be under the greatest threat.

Inappropriate land management practices often occur on or adjacent to important habitats. Examples include pollution from stormwater runoff, rubbish disposal and inappropriate stock grazing.

Tourist and recreational activities can impact on the resource. In particular over-use can cause degradation of the quality of the environmental resource itself.

Frequently there is a Jack of knowledge of the resource (ecological values, threats and interactions), resulting in inappropriate management practices.

Ecological protection is managed by a number of agencies including Department of Conservation and the Regional Council. This can cause confusion in the local community as to which agency is the relevant one to approach dependent on the type of ecological protection or information they are seeking.

Native forest habitat: bush clearance may be undertaken for milling, firewood, mining, house sites, access roads and agricultural activitiesTesulting in Joss of the resource.

10. Riparian habitat: inappropriate management of riparian areas

including vegetation clearance and stock management, resulting in the Joss of ecological values, bank erosion and pollution of water with sediment and nutrients.

11. Wetland habitat: Joss of wetlands and damage caused by drainage and infilling. Wetlands are stated in the RMA as a matter of national importance, yet they have a low public profile and there is a Jack of knowledge within the community about their value, sensitivity and rarity.

13 November 2014

Coastal habitat: estuarine areas, dunes and pohutukawa are sensitive, as are shorebird and estuarine bird roost and nesting sites, particularly to development pressures and the impact of projected sea level rises.

Equity: the distribution of the costs and benefits of ecological protection and management between individual landowners and the community can be inequitable.

Section 5- Natural Environment

5.2

5.2.:11.

5.2.2

10

Objectives and Policies

Objectives

1.

2.

3.

Protection of all significant native plant and animal habitats within the Western Bay of Plenty District.

Support and encourage the protection and enhancement of ecosystems of importance for both the natural processes they offer and any ecological benefits in terms of connectivity, buffering or the provision of habitat for threatened species.

Preservation of the natural character of the Distlict:s coastal environment (including the coastal marine area), rivers, lakes, and their margins.

4. Preservation of wetland and riparian areas and where practicable the enhancement or restoration of the values and function of degraded wetland and riparian areas.

5.

Policies

1.

2.

3.

Greater public awareness, support and involvement in the protection and restoration of areas of ecological significance, particularly those in lowland and coastal areas.

Ecological sites that have been scientifically identified as significant should be protected.

Support and encourage the protection and enhancement of ecological corridors, networks and connections between significant native habitats and ecosystems.

Protective measures should account for the dynamics of water related effects on wetlands.

4. Importance should be placed on the off site contributions of riparian areas to the health of adjoining habitats (wetlands, rivers, the sea, estuaries and other associated land/water interfaces).

5. Likely changes in sea level should be provided for in ways that allow for the natural inland migration of the coast and associated identified native habitats and ecosystems.

Protection measures should take into account natural seasonal fluctuations in habitat character and sensitivity.

Section 5 - Natural Environment 13 November 2014

7. An approach . which is precautionary but responsive to increasecj knowledge should be adopted where the management of the environment is hindered by lack of understanding about processes and the effects of activities.

8. Activities should not adversely affect any identified significant native plant and animal habitats and ecosystems.

9. The adverse effects of inappropriate subdivision, use and development on the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and their margins should be avoided. Where avoidance is not practicable, such effects should be appropriately remedied or mitigated.

10. The farming of species which may threaten natural ecosystems should be controlled through appropriate fencing standards.

11. To protect and maintain wetlands and riparian areas and enhance and restore wetlands and riparian areas in appropriate locations.

12. Activities should not result in the release of animal or plant pests that are likely to cause harm to native vegetation, habitats and native fauna.

13. Any new activities should be managed in a way that avoids damage to undergrowth and the removal of forest floor material which would result in the native ecosystem being adversely affected in identified significant areas.

14. Encourage the ongoing protection and management of ecological areas using the protection lot rule.

!5.3 Applicability

!5.4

These rules apply to features of ecological significance. Refer to the Planning Maps for location and Appendix 1 for further details.

Activity Lists

Permitted Activities

(a) Activities in areas subject to and in accordance with specific covenants or other legal agreements entered into with the District Council, Regional Council, Department of Conservation, or QEII Trust.

13 November 2014 Section 5 - Natural Environment

'

\ · ; Western Bay of Plenty

·:// f!Jlstrfcl Cr.umcff

(b) Clearance of exotic species subject to no native trees greater than 6m in height being felled for access.

(c) Planting and management of indigenous vegetation, restoration, perimeter fencing, and any plant or animal pest control measures.

(d) Activities on reserves as provided for in the Reserves Act 1977 and the Conservation Act 1987.

(e) Trimming or pruning of any native tree, bush or plant if it becomes a hazard or infringes onto an area used for primary production so long as it will not result in the death, destruction or irreparable damage of the tree, bush or plant.

(f) Maintenance of existing tracks, walkways and fences.

(g) All activities that would otherwise be permitted by the District Plan shall be permitted where evidence is provided to the satisfaction of Council that demonstrates that an area (or part of an area) identified on the District Planning Maps as an ecological feature does not contain any ecological values and has not contained the ecological values since 1994.

5.4.2 Restricted Discretionary Activities (excluding Matakana Island)

12

(a) Native vegetation removal, destruction or clearance (including logging and burning).

(b) Earthworks.

(c) Infilling (including dumping), drainage or piping of wetlands.

(d) Planting of exotic species.

(e) Visitor and outdoor recreational facilities and activities.

(f) Educational facilities.

(g) Accommodation facilities associated with (e) or (f) above.

(h) Dwellings and accessory buildings including minor dwellings and accessory dwellings.

(i) Home enterprises.

(j) Subdivision.

(k) Minerals exploration, mining and quarrying.

(I) Works and network utilities as provided for in Section 10.

Section 5 - Natural Environment 13 NovemhP'r ?014

5.4.3

5.4.4

5.4.5

17 ll.nril ?n14

Discretionary Activities

Western Bay of Plenty y··· fJffst£'it';l teurwi!

(a) Visitor and outdoor recreational facilities and activities on Matakana

Island that meet the performance standards in 18.4.1Cq).

(b) Accommodation facilities and educational facilities associated with (a)

above on Matakana Island that meet the performance standards in

18.4.1Cf).

Ilion-Complying Activities

(a) Subdivision (only where additional lots are created within Natural

Features and Landscapes and not within the balance area) and

developmenton Matakana Island.

Prohibited Activities

(a) Places of assembly not covered in 5.4.2.

(b) Accommodation facilities not covered in 5.4.2.

(c) Production forestry not covered in 5.4.2.

(d) Rural contractors depots.

(e) Kennels, catteries.

(f) Intensive farming.·

(g) Rural selling places.

(h) Animal saleyards.

(i) Coolstoresjpackhouses.

(j) Dumping of rubbish or garden waste.

(k) Planting or introduction of pest plant and animal species.

Information Requirements

Any application must be accompanied by an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). The degree of detail of the AEE should reflect the nature and effect of the proposal on the Identified Significant Ecological Feature. The AEE

SPrtinn 'i" - N::~h 1r::~l FnvirnnmPnt

12

of proposed activities must take account of the values of the feature and its vulnerability. The AEE shall contain the following information:

(a) A plan of the property subject of the application indicating the location and dimensions of areas to be affected by the proposed works (must include the extent of any excavation, fill, water flow, water table and vegetation clearance impacts where relevant).

(b) The location of existing and proposed buildings and activities in relation to the ecological feature and how the development proposal will serve to protect and enhance the feature.

(c) An assessment of the impact of the proposal on natural habitats and ecological values of the locality and how they will be avoided, remedied or mitigated and managed for protection (including wetland and riparian impacts). Depending on the effects of the proposal, assessment may be required from a suitably qualified person.

(d) Details of an appropriate rehabilitation programme or other mitigation measures for the area to be subject to the proposed activities. Again this may need to be from a suitably qualified person depending on the nature of the effect and mitigation required.

Explanatory Note (not a rule) There is a requirement under Part III of the Forests Act 1949 to consult with the Indigenous Forest Unit of the Ministry for Primary Industries before felling any indigenous forest on private land.

(e) The location and extent of any archaeological, cultural and historic sites within any allotment subject to the application and how they will be affected by the proposal.

(f) The likely impact of the proposal on natural landforms in terms of potential for subsidence or erosion (including stream banks).

(g) The time period over which the work will take place.

(h) The likely impact of noise generated from construction activity, the facilities and/or activities on natural habitats and ecosystems (including noise generated from modes of transport and/or recreation equipment, and including levels, times, and durations).

Section 5 - Natura! Environment 17 fl,.,~:l '10-IA

!5.6

5.6.1

17 Anril 7n1Ll.

Matters of Discretion

Assessment criteria lfor Restricted lliiscreticmillilf Activities

In considering an application for a Restricted Discretionary Activity Council is restricted to the following assessment criteria. These criteria can be used as a guide for Discretionary and Non Complying Activities.

(a) The scale and intensity of the activity shall be tailored to ensure the sustainability of natural habitats and ecosystems associated with the site.

(b) All existing native vegetation shall be retained except where removal is unavoidable for the following reasons:

(i) to create a building platform;

(ii) for access and parking;

(iii) for the purposes of the proposed activity.

In this case mitigation should be provided to compensate for the loss of this vegetation where deemed appropriate.

(c) Any native vegetation removal must not adversely affect the functioning and sustainability of natural habitats and ecosystems.

(d) All earthworks necessary for building platforms, access or the activity shall be such that they create minimal disturbance to natural habitats and ecosystems.

(e) Any effects on the Significant Ecological Feature as a result of the location of house sites and the associated threat from any animal predators, or any garden plants entering the feature.

(f) The noise, light or glare impact generated from construction activity, the facility or the activity, must not adversely affect the sustainability of natural habitats and ecosystems.

(g) Development proposals shall ensure that any run-off or storm water resulting from the establishment of the activity does not lead to siltation, sedimentation or a reduction of water quality in natural watercourses, wetlands and groundwater that leads to adverse effects on identified natural habitats and ecosystems.

(h) For works and network utilities the proposal must demonstrate the necessity to locate within or adjacent to the Significant Ecological Feature concerned.

'

5.6.2

5.7

5.7.1

14

> We stem Bay of Plenty fJ!sc"t'fce Crtaacff!

(i) The nature, duration, form and extent of the proposed development, activity, alteration or change and its effects on the Significant Ecological Feature.

(j) The degree of modification or damage that will be caused to the Significant Ecological Feature.

(I<) Whether there is reasonable alternative location on the site for the proposed development or activity that will result in a nil or lesser impact on the proposed natural area.

(I) The objectives and policies in the District Plan relating to the

protection of Significant Ecological Feature.

( m) The potential effects of the proposed development on the ecological relationships between features (e.g. connectivity and buffering).

(n) Consideration of relevant iwi management plans.

( o) Ways in which an effect can be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Discretionarv and Non-Complying Activities - Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

In considerina an apolication for a Discretionarv Activity or a Non-Comolying

Activity, Council shall consider:

(a) Relevant objectives and oolicies of the District Plan.

(b) The matters listed in 5.6.1. 18.5.8.

Other Methods

The Bay of Plenty Regional Water and Land Plan. This Plan, administered by the Regional Council seeks to promote the sustainable and integrated management of land and water resources. It includes a number of regulatory and nonregulatory methods to manage the impacts of activities on natural habitats/ecosystems. These activities include, but are not limited to, earthworks, forest harvesting, vegetation clearance by burning, wetland modification as well as the disturbance of land and soil resulting from vegetation clearance.

Financial incentives to landowners for environmental protection shall be by way of grants for fencing. The District Council in applying these grants will work in consultation with the Regional Council and the application of their environmental management plans.

Section 5 - Natural Environment 17 Anril ?n14

5. 7.3 Advisory function performed by the Department of Conservation and the Regional Council on management aspects of areas with ecological and/or soil and water conservation values.

5.7.4 Inclusion of all the Distrids identified ecological areas on Council's Geographical Information system (GIS) mapping system. This information forms part of the Land Information Memorandum and draws the landowner's attention to the ecological values contained within the identified sites.

5.7.5 Queen Elizabeth II and other grants, for example the Natural Heritage Fund and Nga Whenua Rahui, for fencing in exchange for covenanting features.

5.7.6 Application fees shall be waived for resource consents for activities within Significant Ecological Features that would otherwise be a Permitted Activity.

17 llnril ?014 Section 5 - Natulr31 Environm~nt 1!5

Section Contents

6. Landscape ............................................................................................................ 2

Explanatory Statement ................................................................................................... 2

6.1 Significant Issues .................................................................................................. 3

6.2 Objective and Policies ............................................................................................. 3

6.3 Applicability .......................................................................................................... 3

6.4 Activity Lists .......................................................................................................... 3

6.5 Information Requirements for Restricted Discretionary and Discretionary Activities ... 8

6.6 Matters of Discretion ........................................................................................... 10

6.7 Other Methods .................................................................................................... 13

Matakana Island Aspects of this Section of the District Plan that relate specifically to Matakana Island remain subject to appeal by reason of the following appeals:

• Bay of Plenty Regional Council (ENV-2010-AKL-000096) • Blakely Pacific Limited (ENV-2010-AKL-000076) • TKC Holdings Limited and Matakana Investment Group Limited (ENV-2010-AI<L-

000072)

As such the provisions in this Section of the District Plan that relate to the above have been

annotated to indicate existing appeals. This has been done by providing a line in the right hand margin beside the part of the District Plan that has been appealed. Beside these lines is a number which is the Council reference to the respective appeals as follows:

• Bay of Plenty Regional Council - 1

• Blakely Pacific Limited - 3 • TKC Holdings Limited and Matakana Investment Group Limited - 35

Accordingly, in regard to provisions relating specifically to Matakana Island, the 2002 Operative District Plan and the 30 January 2010 Decisions Version of the Proposed District

In all other cases the 2012 District Plan as operative applies to

16 June 2012 Section 6 - Landscape 1

landscape

6. Landscape


The Western Bay of Plenty District Council has a number of natural features and landscapes that are appreciated by residents and visitors alike for their outstanding visual character and appeal. These features have been formally identified in a landscape assessment and mainly comprise of dominant landform features such as peaks, ridgelines and sharp transitions between landform types such as between land and water. A number of important viewshafts from State Highways and public lookouts have also been identified.

These landscape features and views are sensitive to change and their visual quality can be compromised by the individual or cumulative effects of land use and development activities which are not in harmony with the natural appearance of the landscape. Over the next ten year planning period, it is anticipated that there will be additional pressure put on these landscapes from subdivision and development To ensure these landscape features are protected and maintained for current and future generations it is appropriate to implement planning controls to ensure potential impacts of development are avoided or mitigated.

The rules in this Section apply to the Outstanding Landscape Features identified in Appendix 2 and on the Planning Maps. Specific Landscape Management Areas and rules have been adopted for both the Wairoa River Valley and Tauranga Harbour Margin. The new setbacks which define the extent of these management areas are significantly larger than in the previous District Plan, however they provide a more accurate reflection of the particular vulnerability of these landscapes to inappropriate subdivision and development A set of Permitted Activity standards has been provided to allow development to still occur as of right in situations where the effects are deemed to be acceptable.

The Outstanding Landscape Features identified in Appendix 2 are in most.cases located on private property. The overall intention of the rules in this section is to not unreasonably prevent development within landscape features but rather to ensure that development is undertaken in a manner which mitigates its visual impact against the surrounding natural environment.

Lot boundaries provide the overall pattern of landscape that in time determines ,..r;:~;:L0F;~ landscape character. Where possible they should be aligned to reinforce the

' s f;(' ,__:<-"'/ ~ natural pattern of the landscape . •. . , \ \

; ~ \ Existing use rights apply. These include farm management and the

"" '""" · .. - k:: quarnes 'ZO'i'l,"' ""'''',., ~"'*' . ~~

2 Section 6 - Landscape 16 June 2012

f

'):

6.1

6.2

6.2.1

6.2.2

Significant Issues

1. The District has a number of outstanding natural features and landscapes, the visual quality of which can be adversely affected by

inappropriate subdivision, use and development

2. Important viewshatts from public locations such as State Highways

and public lookouts can be compromised by inappropriate land use and development activities.

Objective and Policies

Objective

The unique visual quality and character of the Districts outstanding natural

features, landscapes and viewshafts are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development

Policies

1. Within areas identified as being outstanding natural features and landscapes, landscape character should be protected and enhanced by managing the adverse effects of inappropriate land use and development activities.

2. Identified outstanding viewshafts throughout the District should be maintained through the avoidance of inappropriate development

6.3 Applicability

The rules within tlie Landscape Section apply only within identified natural features and landscapes and identified viewshafts. Refer to Planning Maps for general location and Appendix 2 (Schedule of Identified Outstanding Landscape

Features) for detailed descriptions. For the purpose of interpretation, the description provided in Appendix 2 shall take priority over the maps with regard to location.

6.4 Activity lists


In addition to those activities listed as Permitted in the respective zone (or in Rule 10.3) but excluding those listed as Restricted Discretionary in 6.4.3 below, the following are Permitted Activities:

28 September 2013 Section 6- Landscape 3

'> Western Bay of Plenty ._.:./ fiis&·ffr;t Cm.mr.;i!

·,'

6.4.1.1

6.4.1.2

6.4.1.3

4

Within Identified Natural Features and Landscapes

(a) Production forestrv in landscape feature S9 and 525 c Matakana Island.

(a) PredtictiOR ,'i'n·estl}'in landscape feature 59 ~4atakana Island.

(b) Native forest logging under the Forest Amendment Act 1993.

Within 50m inland from MHWS in the Tauranga Harbour Landscape Management Area (58) and within 50m from the river bank in the Wairoa River Landscape Management Area {57), and within 49ffl 50m from MHWS in the Matakana Island landscape Management Area (59) landscape feature

(a) Where ancillary to a permitted activity in the Rural Zone -earthworks (cut or fill) not exceeding a maximum cumulative volume of 200m3 per lot or resulting in a maximum cumulative vertical face of greater than l.Sm. Provided that any face shall be grassed or mass planted.

Between 50m and 300m inland from MHWS in the Tauranga Harbour Landscape Management Area (58) and between 50m and 300m from the river bank in the Wairoa River Landscape Management Area (57) and between 49ffl 50m and 300m inland from MHWS in the Matakana Island Landscape Management Area {59) lmulscape feature

(a) Where ancillary to a permitted activity in the Rural Zone or associated with a building- earthworks (cut or fill) not exceeding a maximum cumulative volume of 500m3 per lot or resulting in a maximum cumulative vertical face of greater than 1.5m. Provided that any face shall be grassed or mass planted.

(b) Buildings subject to compliance with all of the following Permitted Activity performance standards;

(i) Height 6m (restriction applies only between 50m and 150m inland from MHWSand from the river bank);

Note: Rural Zone height of 9m applies between 150m and 300m inland from MHWSand from the river bank.

(ii) All external surfaces of buildings (excluding glazing) shall comply with the following reflectivity standards:

Section 6 - Landscape

Walls= no greater than 35%; Roofs = no greater than 25%;

Explanatory Note: The above shall be in accordance with British Standard BS5252 Reflectance Value.

16 June Z01Z

35.15 35.17

35.15 3.13 1.6

6.4.1.4

6.4.2

6.4.3

6.4.3.1

(iii) No mirrored glass shall be used;

, Westem Bay of Plenty ,/· lJisfriml CGll&Gff!

(iv) No native vegetation greater than 3m in height shall be removed as a result of any new building andjor access way.

Explanatmy Note: For the purpose of this rule 'buildings' shall include additions and alterations to existing buildings lawfully established prior to 1 January 2010 or granted building consent (and resource consent if required) for which relevant applications were lodged prior to 1 January 2010, which increase the gross floor area of that existing building by 50% or more.

Except that: Additions and alterations which do not increase the gross floor area

of an existing building (as described above) by 50% or more shall be exempt from compliance with any rules contained within the Landscape Section of the District Plan.

Within Identified Viewshafts

(a) Removal or trimming of vegetation.

(b) Native forest logging under the Forest Amendment Act 1993.

Controlled Activities

Those activities listed as Controlled Activities in the respective zone, but excluding those listed as Restricted Discretionary in 6.4.3 following.

Restricted Discretionary Activities

Within Identified Natural Features and Landscapes (except those addressed by specific activity lists in 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3 following):

(a) Subdivision (only where additional lots are created within Natural Features and Landscapes and not within the balance area), excluding the Matakana Island Oben Coast (S25).

(b) Buildings excluding the Matakana Island Open Coast (S25).

(c) Eatthworks (cut or fill) resulting in a maximum cumulative vertical face of greater than 1.5m.

Native vegetation clearance excluding the Matakana Island Ooen Coast (S25l ..

Production forestry.

28 september 2013 Section 6 - Landscape 5

35.15 3.13 1.6

35.15 3.13 1.5

6.4.3.2

6.4.3.3

(f) Works and network utilities classified as Discretionary Activities by Rule 10.3.

Within 50m inland from MHWS in the Tauranga Harbour Landscape Management Area (58) and within 50m from the river bank in the Wairoa River Landscape Management Area (S7) and within 49m 50m from MHWS in the Matakana Island Landscape Management Area (S9) landseape featl!re

(a) Subdivision (only where additional lots are created within Natural Features and Landscapes and not within the balance area) excluding the Matakana Island Landscape Management Area (59).

(b) Buildings excluding the Matakana Island Landscape Management Area (59).

(c) Where ancillary to a permitted activity in the Rural Zone -earthworks (cut or fill) exceeding a maximum cumulative volume of 200m3 per lot and/or resulting in a· maximum cumulative vertical face of greater than 1.5m.

(d) Native vegetation clearance.

(e)

(f)

Production forestry.

Works and network utilities classified as discretionary activities by Rule 10.3.

Between 50m and 300m inland from MHWS in the Tauranga Harbour Landscape Management Area {S8) and between 50m and 300m from the river bank in the Wairoa River Landscape Management Area (S7) and between 49m 50m and 300m inland from MHWS in the Matakana Island Landscape Management Area {59) laRdseape feat&~re.

(a) Buildings that do not meet all of the Permitted Activity performance standards provided in 6.4.1.3(b) above excluding the Matakana Island Landscape Management Area (59).

(b) All earthworks (cut and fill) including those ancillary to permitted activities in the Rural Zone exceeding a maximum cumulative volume of 500m3 per lot and/or resulting in an maximum cumulative vertical face of greater than l.Sm.

(c) Removal of native vegetation over 3m in height, as a result of any new buildings and/or access way excluding the Matakana Island Landscape Management Area (59).

(d) The assessment criteria set out in Rule 6.6.1 are applicable only to the extent that they relate to any actual or potential adverse

Section 6 - Landscape 16 June 2012

35.15 3.13 1.5

'

6.4.3.4

Western Bay af Plenty ./ tllfE21'iCl Comu;JJ

environment effects directly attributable to the particular matter of non-compliance.


(a) High Restriction Area

Any of the following activities which exceed 1.2m in height above ground level. (i) Buildings/Structures (ii) Fences/ Walls (except a post and wire fence) (iii) Signs (except Official Signs) (iv) Artificial Crop Protection (v) Works and Utilities classified · under Rule 10.3,

excluding those not above ground level and street lighting

(vi) Earthworks (fill) (vii) Planting of vegetation that will exceed the height limit

referred to under (a) above (at maturity) (viii) Production Forestry (ix) Conservation Forestry

(b) Medium Restriction Area

Any of the following activities which exceed Sm in height above ground level.

(i) Buildings/Structures (ii) Signs (except Official Signs) (iii) Altiffcial Crop Protection (iv) Works and Utilities classified under Rule 10.3,

excluding those not above ground level and streetlighting

(v) Earthworks (fill) (vi) Planting of vegetation that will exceed the height limit

referred to under (b) above (at maturity) (vii) Production Forestry (viii) Conservation Forestry

(c) low Restriction Area

(i) Production Forestry (ii) Conservation Forestry


Within 50m from MHWS in the Matakana Island landscape Management Area (S9).

(a) A solid fence exceeding 1.2m in height.

Between 50m and 300m inland from MHWS in the Matakana Island landscape Management Area (59).

28 September 2013 Section 6- Landscape 7

> Western Bav at Plentv >... f&!!ifdf::~ CiJ&~ft&{i

,:/

6.4.4.3

6.4.5

6.4.5.1

(a) A solid fence exceeding 1 .2m in height.

Any activity not listed as a Permitted, Controlled or Restricted Discretionary or Non-Comolying Activitv.

Non-Complying Activities

Within 50m from MHWS in the Matakana Island Landscape Management Area (S9a) and Matakana Island Open Coast (S25)

(a) Buildings

(b) Subdivision (only where additional lots are created within Natural Features and Landscaoes and not within the balance area).

(c) Dwellings

6.-5 6 Information Requirements for Restricted Discretionary and Discretionary Activities

8

A landscape and visual assessment is to be provided with the application by a suitably qualified person. This assessment shall establish the landscape context taking into account the proposed activity and the affected landscape elements applicable to the development site and the immediate surrounding area.


(b) Include a site plan that shall identify lot boundaries, contours (reduced levels i.e. levels related to a known datum point), landscape types, native vegetation, and other trees over 6.0m in height, waterways, significant adjacent off-site natural features, the

.location of buildings and structures (and RL's for roofs), proposed access, fencelines, and the finished landform and levels in relation to the proposed subdivision or proposed works, to clearly demonstrate the protection of the natural landscape character.

(c) Recommend conditions necessary to mitigate adverse effects or provide positive effects on the landscape including:

(i) Controls on the siting, bulk, location and design of building~ earthworks and vegetation removal;

(ii) Location and design of roading and associated services;

(iii) Planting of vegetation and/or landscaping on public and private lands;

(iv) Protection of features of landscape significance or historic heritage;

(v) Location and design of fencing.

The level of detail provided with any application shall be related to the scale of the activity and the nature of any effects.

For ease of analysis and consistent administration, the landscape elements as they relate to the Tauranga Harbour (SS) and Wairoa River (57) Landscape Management Areas and Matakana Island (59) have been broadly defined into four landscape types as follows:

Harbour plains/river flats: This landscape type is found mostly within the bays, along the harbour margin but also along the margins of the Wairoa River. Generally the estuarine margin is densely vegetated or a sandy beach is found. The depth of the harbour and river plains varies eventually meeting a rolling slopes landscape. The slope for this landscape element ranges between 0-4°.

Rolling hills/slopes: This landscape comprises rolling landscape and can vary from gentle rolling to strong rolling hillsides with deep valleys and dominant ridgelines. In some cases the rolling slopes drop to meet the harbour margin directly with some estuarine margin abutting the edge. Slopes range between 4-21°.

Scarps/ cliffs: This landscape is found mostly along the varying headlands within the Tauranga Harbour and along the edge of the Wairoa River and its plains. Both scarps and cliffs are steep slopes ranging between 21-90°.

6 February 2013 Section 6- Landscape ·

·; Western Bay of Plenty _ ::>·· Diairfffl¥ c~rf.la&fi

·1:"::-··

6.6

6.6.1

6.6.1.1

Plateau: This landscape type is found along the varying headlands within the Tauranga Harbour and above steep river cliffs. The plateau in many cases supports a variety of land uses, including horticuiture, agriculture and residential housing. The plateau landform ranges between of 0-4°slope.


Assessment criteria for Restricted Discretionary Activities

The assessment criteria in 6.6.1.3 and 6.6.1.4 below apply to:

(a) Activities within natural features and landscapes where such activities are visible from State Highways or the public lookouts identified within the descriptions of viewshafts 5, 6 and 7.

(b) Activities within Orokawa Bay Unit (51), the Wairoa River (57) and Tauranga Harbour (58) Matakana Island Landscape Management Areas (59), Landsca!le ~1anagement J'.Feas, '1arolsna Islaml (59), Motuhoa Island (514), Rangiwaea Island (515) Motungaio Island (516); Maketu Estuary (519), Okurei Point and Headland (520), Waihi Estuary (521) and Pul<ehina Spit End (522) where such activities will be visible from the adjoining waterbody.

(c) Activities within the Open Coastal Landward Edge Protection Yard (524) where such activities will be visible from both the adjoining waterbody and the beach.

(d) Activities within identified viewshafts where such activities could compromise the quality of the view or cause or contribute to the obstruction of the view.

Explanatory Note

'

The Tauranga Harbour (58) and Wairoa River (57) Landscape 3.13

6.6.1.2

Management Areas and Matakana Island Landscape Management Areas (59) ~1akilsna Island (59) are included as natural features and landscapes within Appendix 2 and extend 300m inland from MHWS (58 and 59) and the river bank (57) on Rural Zoned land only.

In considering an application for a Restricted Discretionary Activity Council is restricted to the following assessment criteria. These criteria can be used as a guide for Discretionary and Non Complying Activities .

..--:-l[J§.l...3 Within Identified Natural features and Landscapes /s<C-"·l F lty~ .

,{x-~ ·.~ \(a) The extent to which the development will maintain, enhance, or / : a\f. C.: • .. ~. 0 \ avoid adverse effects on, the integrity of the landform and skyline

'' ::i' I profile. Factors that will be considered include: _, ,-.: ~ ~

"-----' fc ""


(i) Reflectivity standards relating to the colour and finish of buildings(see British Standard BS 5252);

(ii) The height of buildings taking into account the surrounding landscape;

(iii) Whether building form or works positively respond to the natural landform contour;

(iv) The extent of landform modification and whether the finished landform appears natural;

(v) The ability to mitigate effects through landscape planting using native plant species within a timeframe not exceeding five years;

(vi) The Design Response Guidelines identified on Page 28 of the Western Bay of Plenty District Council Landscape Review - Assessment of Landscape Management Requirements for the Tauranga Harbour Margins and Wairoa River Valley by Boffa Miskell (October 2008).

(b) The extent to which native vegetation removal can be avoided having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed activity. For subdivision and buildings native vegetation should not be removed except where there is no alternative for building location or access. Subdivision should locate house sites and access outside existing stands of native vegetation.

(c) The extent and location of earthworks having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed activity. For subdivision and buildings/

earthworks shall generally not exceed that required for the building(s), vehicle access and turning, and outdoor living court(s).

(d) The ability to retain a natural appearance following site earthworks

and vegetation removal. All disturbed ground should be contoured to be sympathetic to the natural landform and revegetated with species appropriate to the context and use of the site.

(e) The extent of proposed planting on re-contoured slopes steeper than 1 in 4.

(f) The extent of visual effects of any works and network utilities.

(g) The extent to which Significant Ecological Features within the visual landscape are avoided, maintained or enhanced (See Section 5).

(h) The extent to which the location and design of access tracks and roads follow the natural contours, minimise any cut at ridgelines, and mitigate any impact by regrassing/planting. Work should take account of weather and planting times.

6 February 2013 Section 6- Landscape 11

. '> 1/Jfestem Bay al Plenty ... ~.-' t:Jlatri&t Cms!!ie;il

6.6.1.4

6.6.2

12

(i) The extent to which new lot boundaries and fencing follows natural ground contours: Fences should not be located on the top of ridgelines and where practical should be incorporated into the landform feature within the lot Water courses, areas of native bush and wetlands should not be dissected by subdivision or development.

G) The extent to which production forestry is in general accordance with any applicable industry code of practice. Particular regard shall be given to the following matters:

(i) Avoiding geometric and unnatural shapes and unnatural orderliness;

(ii) Attention to the shape and line of the production forest to blend into the landscape;

(iii) Avoiding disruption to the skyline;

(iv) Avoiding vertical lines that divide a landscape;

(v) Oversowing clear-felled areas with grasses or replanting as soon as possible after felling;

(vi) Avoiding areas of high visual profile, particularly around the Tauranga Harbour margin (excluding Matakana Island) and the Wairoa River valley.


(a) The location of activities shall not compromise the quality of the view or cause or contribute to the obstruction of the view.

Discretionary and Non-Complying Activities - Matters of Discretion and Assessment Criteria

In considering an apolication for a Discretionary Activity or a Non-Complying

Activity. Council shall consider:

(a) All the assessment criteria included in 6.6.1.3.

(b) Relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan.

(c) With regard to Matakana Island. the vision. principles and imolementation strategies included in the adooted Matakana Tsland Plan.

Section 6- Landscape

6.7

6.7.1

6.7.2

Other Methods

Bay of Plenty Regional Water and Land Plan with regard to earthworks.

Negotiation of joint management plans with affected landowners to maintain/enhance the significant viewshafts that are threatened by existing vegetation.

6.7.3 DistrictCounci!incentives which may be payable for protection covenants

6.7.4 Application fees shall be waived for resource consents for activities within

6 February 2013

Identified Outstanding Landscape Features that would otherwise be a Permitted Activity.

Section 6 - Landscape 13

> l/l!estem flay of Pleniy :_./ ffJHatiir:i" CGUflCfP

~·f·

Proposed Changes to Appendix 2

Attachment F

Schedule Features

of Identified Outstanding landscape

Natural Features and landscapes

S9 - Matakana Island landscape Management Area The area identified as visually significant includes all Rural Zoned land between MHWS and 1.5 300m above MHWS adioining the Tauranga Harbour. This landscape feature is divided into 35.15 two distinct areas. The area within 50m of MHWS (shown as 59a on the Plannina Maps) is 3.13 deemed to be more significant and thus greater restrictions apply.

S25 - Matakana Island Open Coast Matakana Island is the largest sand barrier island in New Zealand. The open coastline extends 23km between the northern and southern entrances to the Tauranga Harbour. This part of the feature follows the landform's natural dune systems and native vegetation cover. A dynamic dune system extends inland partway into the edge of the olantation forestry with varying areas of native under storey. The area displays a high level of natural character and is part of the coastal environment where coastal processes are dominant. The sand spits that extend at either end of the Island are included for their display of the dynamic coastal processes of the Harbour and open coast. These areas also include habitat for threatened bird species including New Zealand Dotterel.

14 Section 6 - Landscape 16 June 2012

New Distr~ct Plan Maps C04, COS, DOS,D06, E06, E07, F07

Author: Andries Cloete Page 5 of 5 16 April 2014 Senior Policy Analyst Resource Management, Western Bay of Plenty District Council Doc No:A909622

As peels of the District Plan !hat relate specifically to Ma!akana Island remain subject to Appeal. Refer to thefrontof

the District Plan Maps for further details.

Western Bay of Pientv fl!s~tfcl G:tm:::tf

Revision Date: 7 March

C04

Rural Series

Aspects oflhe Disfrict Plan !hat relate speclflcallyto Malakana Island remain subject to Appeal. Refer to !he front of


Revision Date: 7 March 2014

C05

Aspects of the District Plan that relate specifically to Ma!akana Island remain subject to Appeal. Refer to !he front of

the District Plan Maps forfurlherdelails.

Asp eels of the District Plan !hat relate specifical!y1o Matakana Island remain subject to Appeal. Refer to the front of

the Dlsllict Plan Maps for further details.

,,

\, . ' .... ~~. ::::: :-::" ·······~ " . " .. .

·, ...... . . ' ' . : ~)

·\ ::::::>.,.,

We stem Bay of Pfeaty f!Mriuf .f.:mmt.if

DOS

Rural Series

Aspecls of!lle Dis~ict Plan Umt relate specifical!ylo Ma!akana Jsland remain subject to Appeal. Refer to the front of


Western Bay at Plenty ilistfict r.mmcu


D06

Aspects of the Dls!rict Plan that relate speciiicaHy to Mala kana Island remain subject to AppeaL Refer to \he front of

the District Plan Maps forfurtherde!ai!s.

-. Westem Bay of P!en!Jt IJi.rMoi (1-)fmef!

E06

E(l't. R u r a I Series

Aspec!s of the District Plan that relate specifically to Matakana Island remain subject to AppeaL Refer to the front of

!he Dis!ric! Plan Maps for further details.

Western !Jay of Plenty !Jistrfe~ CPvm:fJ

EO?

·:::::. :s1s: ·::: .

. I

./

.... ' ...

R u r a I

{

/

Aspec!s of the District Plan that relate specifically to Matakana Island remairt subjec~ to Appeal. Referlo the frorttof


/

Western Bay of Pienty !j!~;l:diJI. Ci.~1riiC."f

·:. f

·' Section 18 - Rural: Contents

Rural 2 '

18. Rural ................................................................................................................. 2

Explanatory Statement ................................................................................................... 2

18.1 Significant Issues ............................................................................................... 4

18.2 Objectives and Policies ....................................................................................... 8

18.3 Activity Lists ..................................................................................................... 12

18.4 Activity Performance Standards ......................................................................... 17

18.5 Matters of Discretion ........................................................................................ 45

Matakana Island Aspects of this Section of the District Plan that relate specifically to Matakana Island remain

subject to appeal by reason of the following appeals:

• Bay of Plenty Regional Council (ENV-2010-AKL-000096)

• Blakely Pacific Limited (ENV-2010-AKL-000076) • TI<C Holdings Limited and Matakana Investment Group Limited (ENV-2010-AKL -000072)

As such the provisions in this Section of the District Plan that relate to the above have been annotated to indicate existing appeals. This has been done by providing a line in the right hand margin beside the part of the District Plan that has been appealed. Beside these lines is a number which is the Council reference to the' respective appeals as follows:

• Bay of Plenty Regional Council - 1

• Blakely Pacific Limited - 3 • TKC Holdings Limited and Matakana Investment Group Limited - 35

Accordingly, in regard to provisions relating specifically to Matakana Island, the 2002 Operative District Plan and the 30 January 2010 Decisions Version of the Proposed District Plan remain applicable. In all other cases the 2012 District Plan as operative applies to Matakana Island.

This dGcument shGws the pmposed changes to Section 18 - Rural as a result of:

a) Western Bay of Plenty District Council decisions on District Plan Variation 2/Pian Change 46 - Matakana Island (shown in red underline for inserts and reEl strikethrough for deletions)

----0r HE~ ;~;>---- , ) Agreed changes as included in the Joint Expert Caucusing Statements (shown in ? · '\Jreen underline for inserts and green strilcethrough for deletions

<!

) ~pposed Consent Order by Blakely Pacific (shown in blue underline for inserts ~to ". ~ "'nd hlue-stFikethfetfgl'l for deletions \.')9, ~rco1J'0 Section 18 - Rural 1

Rural

18. Rural

2


The Western Bay of Plenty District is predominantly a rural area with a number of small towns spread throughout. Rural production is the primary economic driver and the District is reliant on the efficient use of the rural land resource to sustain this production.

The rural area is made up of a number of physically discrete landforms. To the north west lies the Kaimai Range which is characterised by steep elevated ridges

and valleys, is mostly bush clad and is in large part a Forest Park. The foothills to these ranges are steeply sloping to rolling hill country dissected by rivers and

' streams. These foothills have many remnant bush areas and large parts are

used for pastoral farming. The lowland around Tauranga Harbour contains both versatile land and productive land and has a number of other physical attributes which enables this land to be used for horticulture or more intensive farming. To the east of the District around Te Puke the land is characterised by large flat elevated plateaus with incised gullies and broken terrain. Land use varies from horticulture on the lower plateaus to pastoral farming. A coastal plain in the east comprised of fertile lowland peat and sandy silt soils extends from the edge of the plateau area to the coast and is largely flat land used for pastoral farming and slightly elevated rolling land with horticulture.

The rural area contains the majority of the sub-region's remaining indigenous flora and fauna. These areas of high ecological significance include harbours, wetlands, freshwater streams and rivers, areas of indigenous vegetation and protected areas. Protection and enhancement of these areas is desirable to maintain the District's biodiversity.

One of the key attributes of the District is that it encircles the City of Tauranga. Both Tauranga City and the District have experienced considerable growth since 1990 and this growth is forecast to continue. Over half of the people who have moved to the District have chosen to live in the rural area because of the rural lifestyle opportunities that it provides. Many of these people also work within Tauranga City. The opportunities for lifestyle living have been created by the subdivision of rural land under the previous subdivision rules. This has resulted in a wide distribution of lifestyle blocks throughout the District Existing rural communities have often benefited from the increase in population resulting from lifestyle development which has added diversity and provided support for rural services and facilities.

In the last two decades the widespread subdivision of rural land for lifestyle and S: ~ other purposes has resulted in significant fragmentation of the rural land

resource.

Section 18 - Rural 13 November 2014

The magnitude of demand for rural living which has resulted in the high degree

of rural land fragmentation through subdivision was not anticipated and the point has now been reached where the cumulative effects ·of the large amount of intensified rural development has now become evident. Many owners of land have also carried out subdivision to secure future development rights.

Consequently a considerable number of vacant lots now exist which have the potential to be developed. Many of these !of.5 are in areas that have deficient infrastructure and which are remote from employment areas and if developed will continue to add to the cumulative effects already being experienced.

Much rural land is in multiple Maori ownership. It is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and Part 2 of the RMA to recognise and provide for the establishment of Papakaianga and associated supporting facilities

on Maori land so as to give a practical expression to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, waahi tapu and other taonga.

Matakana Island is an elongated barrier island between Tauranga Harbour and the Pacific Ocean that lies between Mount Maunganui in the southeast and Bowentown in the northwest. Its predominant landuses are pastoral .farming and horticulture. with production forestrv on the sand barrier. The Island is of significant value to the Western Bay of Plenty District in a number of ways:

(a) Its resident population of around 250 is principally tangata whenua with a rich cultural historv and strong social fabric.

(b) The Island community has a strong sense of connectedness and a

modest way of life.

(c) It is one of the richest archaeological landscapes in the western Bay of Plenty sub-region.

(d) Matakana Island protects Tauranaa Harbour, which is of national importance, from the Pacific Ocean.

(e) The freshwater wetlands, dune lakes and frontal dune system on the Island are significant ecological features that provide the habitat for a diverse range of threatened and at risk species.

(f) The pine forest landscape, as viewed from the Harbour, open coast and mainland is valued by both residents of the Island and the mainland. and visitors and as a Production forest it will be subject to cyclical harvesting and associated visual changes.

(g) The unbuilt nature of the Matakana Island forested sand barrier.

It is important that future development on Matakana Island complements these sianificant values and provides for the Island community's social, cultural and economic well-beina. Council has adopted the Matakana Island Plan which addresses these sianificant issues in more detail to provide guidance for the future subdivision, use and develooment of the Island. This seeks to confine the built form on the forested sand barrier to be clustered instead of the traditional Pepper ootting based on subdivision lot size. In addition, the hapu of the Island have adopted the Haou Management Plan which has to be taken into account by Council.

13 November 2014 Section 18- Rural 3

18.1

4

Interest has been CJ<pressed fer . rnore intensified tfevdopme,9t of P1atakana Island. The Island has a rieh eultural· flistory· and lilre mueh of the '.'.'estern Bay

\_, 1

of Plenty, its landscape and natural envirenrnent are sensitive to misuse. For 3.1 this reason, any consideration of intensive or large scale tfevv!opFRCf1t must be 4.6 preceded by a 'Whole of Island Plan' that deals with issues in a holistic rnanner. 35.2 -Beve!opme.wthat enhanees the ruFal cornrnunity of the Island within the eonteJEt of general rural planning strategies for the District, including appropriate prevision fo~ Papa!Eaianga housing,fflay-be expected to continue to proviso for the Island comrntmity's social, cultural and economic 'h'CII beifl§o

There has been significant growth in the horticultural sector, especially the kiwifruit industry, over the past 20 years. Large numbers of seasonal workers are needed to satisfy the local demand for labour especially during the picking and pacl<ing season. These workers need to be housed and there is increasing pressure for redundant rural buildings of a non-residential nature to be converted to provide seasonal worker accommodation. Many of these buildings are in somewhat isolated rural locations and require lengthy journeys to either the workplace or the social and retail services provided in towns. From a pastoral care perspective it is preferable that seasonal worker accommodation is located close to the place of employment andjor the service facilities of the towns. Locating accommodation close to post harvest facilities also reduces the number of traffic movements associated with workers travelling to these workplaces.

Careful management of the various demands on the rural land resource can allow the range of legitimate demands made on it to be accommodated in a balanced manner which minimises inter-activity conflict and which is consistent with Councils statutory resource management responsibilities.

Significant Issues

1. Rural primary production is important to the economic welfare of the District and the District's rural land resource is impo.rtant for sustaining this production.

The important contribution of the primary production sector to the economy of the District is directly reflected in rural employment as well as in the significant number of supporting service industries. The Districts reliance on primary production for its economic output means that maintenance of the productive capacity of the rural land resource is critical to the future wellbeing of the District.

The Districts rural land resource (including versatile land) is finite and productive capacity has been diminishing as a result of fragmentation into smaller lots through subdivision and the establishment of additional dwellings for non rural production purposes. There has been increasing pressure for rural residential


subdivision or 'lifestyle' use, particularly in close proximity to urban areas where much of the more versatile land and horticultural production is located. The challenge is to ensure that subdivision under the District Plan rules, in particular those stipulating minimum lot sizes, results in the productive potential of the most versatile

land not being compromised.

3. The character and associated amenity of the rural environment are what makes the District a sought after place in which to live.

4.

13 November 2014

Elements which mal'e up rural character include:

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

A predominance of natural features over human made features;

A high ratio of open space relative to the built environment;

Significant areas in pasture, crops, horticulture, forestry and indigenous vegetation;

A working rural production environment;

Presence of farm animals;

Noise, odours and other effects associated with the use of rural land for a wide range of primary productive purposes and quarries;

Low population densities relative to urban areas;

Existence of some narrow and/or unsealed roads;

General lack of urban infrastructure .

Over half of the District's population lives in rural areas. The rural environment of the District is a popular place in which to live because of the lifestyle opportunities it provides and because of its reasonable proximity to urban employment areas. Demand for lifestyle development in rural areas will therefore be ongoing. Provision to help meet this demand by allowing some additional rural living opportunities is appropriate in selected areas which have the infrastructure capacity and where the productive land resource will not be eroded.

Rural farming practices, including horticulture, can have effects which may influence the well-being of people living in close proximity to and who may be unfamiliar with the operational requirements of primary production which have effects which are to

Section 18 - Rural

6

be anticipated and expected in the Rural Zone. These practices include spray drift, the use of agrichemicals, noise from frost fans, shading from shelterbelts, pumping of water for irrigation, bird scarers, general use of farm machinery both on and off farm, the harvesting of crops which may occur at various times including at night, the weekend and public holidays. These practices have the potential to create noise, dust and odour either of a temporary or intermittent nature beyond the boundary or the property concerned. These are legitimate farming practises which may nevertheless experience reverse sensitivity effects. Because these practices are an accepted and integral part of primary production they should not be unreasonably constrained by other activities.

5. There are a large number of undeveloped rural properties existing throughout the District, some of which have the potential to help meet the demand of those seeking new rural lots for both primary production and lifestyle living.

6. The cumulative effect of the fragmented pattern of rural subdivision and the establishment of additional dwellings for non rural production purposes has led to inefficient use of physical resources and a gradual loss of rural character and degradation in rural amenity values. The historical approach to subdivision within the rural area has been to provide for it throughout the District rather than to channel it into particular locations. The effect of this pepper-pot approach to rural subdivision was to spread adverse effects on rural amenity and infrastructure widely, such that they have been diluted. However, the cumulative effects of the large amount of rural subdivision that has occurred is now becoming evident.

7. Quarrying and other mineral extraction activities are important to the future growth of the western Bay of Plenty sub-region.

By their nature, hard rock and mineral deposits are found in fixed locations and consequently quarrying and/or mining of these resources is constrained by their location. Because of the potential effects generated by quarrying and mining activities such as noise, dust and traffic, development in close proximity to them and alongside access routes to these resources has the potential to create reverse sensitivity issues.

There is the potential for controls on the use and development of rural land to conflict with the special relationship of Maori with their ancestral land.

The legal tenure of land that has Maori land status under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 creates unique ownership issues and many barriers to its development In addition, Maori have traditional values in respect of how Maori land should be developed which may


not be consistent with development standards considered appropriate to apply to other rural land.

9. There is both a need and a desire for Maori to be able to choose to live on their ancestral lands and provide for their physical, social, cultural and economic needs.

10. Matakana Island is a sensitive environment that needs to be olanned for carefully. While the resource management issues relevant to Matakana Island also aoply to other rural land, those of oarticular importance in the .Matakana context include:

•

•

•

•

The subdivision of large blocks into multiple 40ha Jots and the pepper potting of dwellings on these lots.

The potential for more intensive or large scale subdivision. use and development to adversely impact on archaeological. cultural, spiritual. ecological and landscape values. aflel

The need and desire of tanoata whenua to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanoa and to actively protect cultural values over their ancestral land. and to Jive on and develop their own land.

The threat of a multiplicitv of natural hazards including coastal erosion. tsunami. liquefaction. inundation, and fire.

11. The rural land resource can be sought to establish industrial or commercial activities because it is generally Jess expensive to obtain than land within Industrial and Commercial Zones.

12..

13 November 2014

Allowing these activities to establish within rural areas has the potential to detract from the rural character and amenity of the Zone as well as increase conflict with existing activities. It also has the potential to undermine the integrity of the Zones established for these uses in urban areas by reducing demand and resulting in inefficient use of resources.

Seasonal worker accommodation is an important component of the horticultural sector. For efficiency and social and economic reasons they should be located in association with the employment source.

The siting of network utility operations in rural areas is often constrained by the fixed location of the particular resource being utilised, thereby creating the potential for reverse sensitivity effects to occur in respect of other rural land users.

Section 18 - Rural 1

3.2.

4.7 35.3

18.2

18.2..1

8

Objectives and Policies

Objectives

1.

2..

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

The rural land resource and versatile land capability is maintained to enable its use for rural production activities.

Primary productive activities should be able to operate in the Rural Zone without unreasonable constraints being imposed on them by other activities.

Appropriate provision for activities not directly based on primary production but which have a functional or other legitimate need for a rural location.

The efficient use and development of the rural land resource for primary production.

Maintain the rural character and amenity values associated with the low density rural environment.

Protection and enhancement of ecological, landscape, cultural, heritage and other features located in the rural environment which are of value to the wider community.

The efficient and cost effective provision, management and further development of roading, water supplies and other infrastructure required to meet the needs· of rural activities and communities.

The efficient use and development of regionally important mineral resources.

9. Fulfilment of the special relationship of Maori with their ancestral land including the particular culturally based housing needs and traditions associated with such land.

10 The following attributes which contribute to the social, economic and cultural well-being of the Matakana Island community are maintained and supported:

11.

o uniaue way of life.

• rich cultural values,

• sensitive natural environment, and

o a. significant landscape.

Preservation of the options for the future use of land identified in the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement as being required for future urban development


I 3.3

3.4 4.8

3.7 35.9 Appeal Note #14

r

18.2.2 Policies

1. Subdivision, use and development of versatile land should occur in a way which retains its potential to be used for a range of productive rural purposes and which maximises the likelihood of it actually being used for such purposes.

2. Fragmentation of versatile land for purposes not directly related to maintaining or enhancing the primary productive potential of the rural land resource should be avoided or minimised.

3. Except where specifically tailored to accommodate other activities with a legitimate need for a rural location, new rural lots created through subdivision should be of a size and nature suitable for a range of primary productive uses.

4. Subdivision, use and development which has the potential to inhibit the efficient use and development of rural land for primary production or to inhibit the efficient use and development of existing mineral extraction sites (including vehicle access routes to such resources) should be avoided or minimised.

5. Subdivision, use and development of rural land for purposes other than primary production and which have the potential to inhibit the efficient and lawful operation of existing or designated network utility operations should be avoided or minimised.

6. The amalgamation of existing rural lots into larger land parcels should be encouraged.

7. Provide for the amalgamation of large rural lots for productive purposes through the provision of incentives.

8. Encourage the amalgamation of titles in areas with deficient infrastructure services and remote from employment areas through the provision of incentives.

9.

10.

Provision should be made for the limited subdivision of land (including the transfer of title rights to identified areas) in conjunction with the sustainable protection or restoration of ecological, cultural, heritage, landscape or other features of value to the wider community. Activities with a functional or other legitimate need for a rural location should not be established in rural areas unless they are able to be undertaken without constraining the lawful operation of productive rural land uses which are carried out in accordance with accepted management practices.

13 November 2014 Section 18- Rural

10

11. The establishment in rural areas of industrial, commercial or other activities which do not have a functional or other legitimate need for a rural location should be avoided.

12. Subdivision and development should not occur in rural areas which have inadequate roading or other infrastructural capacity to cater for such development

13. Rural-residential or rural lifestyle development should be channelled onto land with the following attributes:

Low versatility for primary production;

Able to be readily serviced;

In reasonable proximity to urban centres;

Able to be developed in a manner sympathetic to the character and amenity values of the surrounding rural area.

14. Subdivision and development of rural land should not occur in a manner which inhibits the legitimate operation of existing mineral extraction sites or in areas known to contain untapped mineral resources of regional significance.

15. The use and development of ancestral Maori land should be provided for in a manner consistent with and in recognition of the special relationship of Maori to such land, including provision for multiple housing and associated support facilities

16. In addition to policies relating to the rural land resource. subdivision, use and development of land on Matakana Island shall recognise and provide for the following matters:

{§} Cultural, spiritual and archaeological values. including the need and desire of Maori to live on, aR€1 develop and otherwise maintain a strong relationship with their ancestral land .

.{Q} Maintenance and enhancement of natural coastal character, natural features. ecology and landscapes, indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna, and historic heritage.

Section 18 - Rural

The need to ensure that large-scale or more intensive subdivision, use and development proposals do not.

13 November 2014

4.8

3.5 3.9 4.9 35.4

4.11 35.6

3.6 4.11 35.6

!

.\

compromise future options for the comprehensive planning, land use and development of the Island .

.(Q} Legal access to the ocean beach. Panepane and sites of cultural significance for at least the local community and landowners.

{g} Sustainabilitv of existing social infrastructure and the cultural and social well-being of the Matakana Island community.

ill Sustainable economic development that contributes to the economic well-being of the Matakana Island community.

Development that is of a scale and nature that will complement the lifestyle (including self-sufficiency) of the Matakana Island community.

(h) Provide for the establishment of additional dwellings and lots on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier in a clustered form eflly (through the use of "on site entitlements" and the transferring of entitlements) in return for avoiding or mitigating adverse effects at donor lots.

(i) Manage subdivision, landuse and development on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier under the rural provisions of the Plan to avoid fragmentation of existing titles

17. Subdivision, use and development of rural land identified in the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement as being required for future urban development in a manner which limits the options for the future use of such land for urban purposes should be avoided or .

8.

13 November 2014

minimised. Particular forms of development which should be avoided include:

(a) Fragmentation of rural land through subdivision unrelated to primary productive use.

(b) The establishment of capital intensive rural or quasi urban land uses.

The release of land for urban development will be staged in a manner which ensures the continued availability of rural land for productive rural purposes and the retention of rural character until urban development occurs.


35.7

4.10 35.5

18.3

18.3.1

19. Rural land will not be proposed to be rezoned for urban development until a comprehensive structure plan which provides a framework for such development in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement has been prepared and forms part of the proposed change to the District Plan.

20. Seasonal worker accommodation facilities should be located on sites which are in close proximity to the principal sources of employment, including:

(a) On rural sites accommodating stand alone post harvest facilities.

(b) In existing townships.

21. Additional dwellings should not be provided for except where these are essential for the management of the land for productive rural purposes.

Activity lists


(a) Fa1ming.

(b) Production forestry.

(c) Conservation forestry.

(d) One dwelling per lot, with the exception of Smithstown (map reference D03) where individual titles do not qualify for the erection of dwellings and dwellings where minor dwellings exist see 18.3.2(b).

(e) Buildings (except dwellings) accessory to the foregoing subject to 18.4.1 W.(g}.

(f) Home enterprises.

(g) Stalls.

(h) Accommodation or education facilities for a combined maximum of four persons (excluding staff).

(i) Works and network utilities as provided for in Section 10.


35.8

3.8 35.10 Appeal Note #2

35.11 Appeal Note #3

18.3.2

(j) Activities on reserves as provided for in the Reserves Act 1977;

(k) Minerals prospecting.

(I) Existing urupa and new urupa adjoining existing urupa.

(m) Frost protection fans, subject to performance standards specified in 4C.1.3.6.

(n) Audible bird scaring devices, subject to performance standards in 4C.1.3.5.

( o) Artificial crop pmtection subject to performance standards specified in 18.4.1tf8.(hl.

(p) Community facilities or buildings up to a cumulative maximum floor area of 200m 2 when associated with a Controlled Activity of five dwellings on multiple owned Maori land accessed from an unsealed road maintained by Council.

( q) Community facilities or buildings up to a cumulative maximum floor area of 400m 2 when associated with a Controlled Activity of 10 dwellings on multiple owned Maori /and accessed from a sealed road maintained by Council.

(r) Private burials as provided for under Clause 47 (1) of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964.

(s) Rural Contractors Depots, excluding within a dwelling cluster on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier.

Controlled Activities

(a) One minor dwelling in addition to 18.3.1(d) above subject to performance standard 18.4.1Ef7ill Standards for minor dwellings, excluding P1atalcaRa Island the Matakana Island forested sand barrier.

(b) One dwelling on a title where no dwelling currently exists and where a minor dwelling exists which was constructed after 9 February 2009, excludino titles on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier.

(c) Works and network utilities as provided for in Section 10.

(d) Frost protection fans, subject to performance standards specified in 4C.1.3.7.

13 November 2014 Section 18 - Rural

3.11 35.12

18.3.3

14

(e) Up to a maximum of five dwellings on multiple owned Maori land accessed from an unsealed road maintained by Council subject to there being an average of at least 2000m 2 of net land area per dwelling (including those provided for as a Permitted Activity).

(f) Up to a maximum of 10 dwellings on multiple owned Maori land accessed from a sealed road maintained by Council subject to there being an average of at least 200Qm2 of net land area per dwelling (including those provided for as a Permitted Activity).

(g) On Matakana Island up to a maximum of 10 dwellings on multiple owned Maori land accessed from a road maintained by Council subject to there being an average of at least 2000m2 of net land area per dwelling (including those provided for as a Permitted Activity).

(h) On Rangiwaea Island up to a maximum of 10 dwellings on multiple owned Maori land subject to there being an average of at least 2000m2 of net land area per dwelling (including those provided for as a Permitted Activity).

(i) Community facilities or buildings up to a cumulative maximum floor area of 800m2 when associated with a Restricted Discretionary Activity of 11 to 30 dwellings on multiple owned Maori land accessed from a sealed road maintained by Council.

(j) Subdivision as provided for in Rules 18.4.2(b) General Farming Lots excluding the Matakana Island forested sand barrier, (d) Transferable Rural Lots, (e) Transferable Amalgamation Lots, (f) Additional Dwelling Lots and (g) Separation Lots.

(k) Protection Lot subdivision, excluding the Matakana Island. for up to two additional lots off a sealed road as specified in Rule 18.4.2(h)(ii)l.

Restricted Discretionary Activities

(a) Any Permitted or Controlled Activity that fails to comply with the activity performance standards listed in Rule 18.4, excluding Matakana Island (see rule 18.3.4(r)).

(b) Subdivision as provided for in 18.4.2(c) Rural Production Lots.

(c) 11 to 30 dwellings on multiple owned Maori land accessed from a sealed road maintained by Council subject to there being an average of at least 2000m2 of net land area per dwelling (including those provided for as a Permitted Activity). Council's discretion is restricted to the matters set out in Rule 18.5.2.


. I

18.3.4

@ Accommodation facilities and education facilities on Matakana Island that comply with 18.4.1(f).

_@} Places of Assemblvon Matakana Island that comply with 18.4.1Cgl.

ill Dwellinas and associated subdivision in addition to 18.3.1(dl on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier subject to compliance with the activity performance standards contained in Rules 18.4.1(d) and 18.4.2(il.

fg} Aauaculture on Matakana Island.

® Works and network utilities as provided for in Section 10.


(a) Intensive Farming Adivities.

(b) Kennels, catteries.

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Accommodation facilities not complying with 18.4.1{67 (§1 elt€1t!diAg PMakaw-±slaoo

Education facilities for more than four persons (excluding staff). eJ«:-ilicliFi§-Miitak;,na IslanEh

Places of assembly. excludin~*afla-I~Eh

Rural selling places.

(g) Rural contractors depots not meeting Rule 18.4.1 tm]{Ql.

(h) Coolstores and packhouses less than 200m 2 gross floor area.

(i) Animal sa!eyards.

(j) Mineral exploration, mining and quarrying.

(k) Urupa (new sites).

(I) Works and network utilities as provided for in Section 10.

(m) Subdivision specified in Rule 18.4.2(h) Protection Lot Subdivision, eJ«:-ltiding P1atakafla-±slaml;- excluding the Matakana Island forested sand barrier.

(n) Development of 31 dwellings or more on multiple owned Maori land

accessed from a sealed road maintained by Council subject to there

13 November 2014 Section 18- Rural :!1.5

3.11

4.12

35.13

3.11

4.13

35.13

3.11

4.14

35.13

3.11 4.15 35.13

18.3.5

16

being an average of at least 2000m 2 of net land area per dwelling (including those provided for as a Permitted Activity).

MfRordwelliR§SOA P1atalcana Island .

.(Q2 Expansion of existing coolstores and packhouses (consented as at 1 January 2010) associated with kiwifruit and avocado industry and not within a Post Harvest Zone.

Protection Lot subdivision not complying with 18.4.2(h)(ii); excluding the Matakana Island forested sand barrier .

.(g} Rural Production Lot subdivision not meeting Rule 18.4.2( c)(ii) -(vi).

{I} Any Permitted or Controlled Activitv on Matakana Island that fails to comply with the activitv performance standards listed in Rule 18.4.

(;;;) Subdivision, dwellings and development associated with the clustering of dwellings on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier that fails to comply with the activity performance standards listed in 18.4, provided that in respect of rule 18.3.6 an overall density of one dwelling per 40ha is not exceeded.

Non-Complying Activities

(a) Subdivision not meeting the land area requirement of performance standard 18.4.2(c)(i).

(b) Minor dwellings not complying with performance standards specified in 18.4.1tf7ffi.

(c) Additional dwellings.

(d) New coolstores and packhouses greater than 200m2 gross floor area.

(e) Within the National Grid Electricity Transmission Buffer

•

•

•

•

Section 18 - Rural

Dwelling~ minor dwellings, accommodation facilitie~

education facilities, hospitals, rest homes, and retirement villages. Principal buildings for intensive farming activities and commercial greenhouses. Buildings for restricted discretionary or discretionary activities in 18.3.3 or 18.3.4. Buildings/structures and earthworks not complying with the performance standards in 18.4.1(r).

13 November 2014

1 3.12

18.3.6

18.4

18.4.1

• Subdivision not complying with the performance standards in 18.4.2(a)(iv).

ill Accommodation facilities, education facilities or Places of Assemb!v on Matakana Island not complying with the performance standards in 18.4.1(0 or 18.4.1(g)

(g) Subdivision oo4-develepmeflton the Matakana Island forested sand barrier #!at is noh'lsse€iateEI--wff!Hhe-€ft15£efiAg of dwel~l3jeel: t-eiJefferfflaA€e-St-afldards in accordance with rule 18.4.2(b).

Prohibited Activities

(a) Residential development and subdivision that exceeds a density of one dwellina oer 40ha on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier.

(hl Minor dwellinos on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier.

Activity Performance Standards

General

The following performance standards shall be met by all Permitted and Controlled Activities and all Restricted Discretionary Activities on Matakana Island. They shall also be used as a guide for the assessment of all other activities. Any Permitted Activity that fails to comply with any of these standards will be a Restricted Discretionary Activity for the particular non-compliance.

Except where specified othe1wise the following performance standards shall be met by all land use activities.

(a) Height of buildings

Maximum - 9.0m.

(b) Daylighting

No part of any building shall exceed a height equal to 2m above ground !eve/at all boundaries and an angle of 45• into the site from that point. Except where the site has a boundary with a road in which case this rule shall not apply in respect to that boundary.

Provided that:


18

A building may encroach through the above daylighting plane where the written approval of the owner(s) of the immediately adjoining property to the specific encroachment is obtained.

(c) Yards

(i) Dwellings, minor dwellings, accommodation facilities, education facilities

Section 18 - Rural

Minimum 30m.

Provided that: A front yard may be reduced to not less than 10m in the following circumstance;

(a) For any additions or alterations to Dwellings, Minor Dwellings, Accommodation Facilities or Education Facilities that were established with a reduced yard, provided that any addition or alteration does not increase the level of non-compliance with the minimum 30m yard and does not increase the existing gross floor area of that building by more than 20%.

Note: For the purpose of this rule "existing gross floor area" shall mean the gross floor area of that building as approved by way of the most recent building consent for which an application was lodged prior to 19 November 2011.

A side or rear yard may be reduced to not less than 10m in one or more of the following circumstances;

(b)

(c)

For titles in existence prior to 30 January 2010 and which are of an area no greater than one hectare; or for titles that have been created by way of a subdivision consent for which an application has been lodged on or before 30 January 2010 and which are of an area no greater than one hectare; or

For titles that have obtained subdivision consent prior to 30 January 2010 or for which a subdivision application was lodged

13 November 2014

. \

13 November 2014

on or before 30 January 2010 and which have an approved building site in accordance with Rule 12.4.1 (b) with a reduced yard where this infringement was assessed at the time of subdivision (this applies only to the building site assessed through the subdivision and new locations will require land use consent); or

(d) For any additions or alterations to dwellings, minor dwellings, accommodation facilities or education facilities that were established with a reduced yard (provided that any addition or alteration does not increase the level of non-compliance with the minimum 30m yard); or

(e) Where any new dwelling, minor dwelling, accommodation facility or education facility (including any additions or alterations to these) can meet all of the following permitted activity performance standards;

Shall not be located any closer than 60m to any existing dwelling, minor dwelling, accommodation facility or education facility that is located on a title separate to that of the subject site and in different ownership;

Shall not be located any closer than 35m to any existing 'other structures' that are located on a title separate to that of the subject site and in different ownership.;

Shall not be within 300m of any intensive farming activity that is located on a title separate to that of the subject site and in different ownership.

Except that: As provided for in (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) below.

Explanatory Note: (a)- (e) above are provided for subject to submission to Council of a written statement from the applicant

Section 18- Rural

20

accepting any adverse environmental effect which may be created by the reduced yard

(ii) All other Structures;

Minimum S.Om.

Provided that: A building may be located within and up to a side or rear boundary where the written approval of the owner of the immediately adjoining property to a specified lesser distance is obtained.

Except that: As provided for in (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) below.

(iii) Where any yard adjoins:

A Strategic Road or a designation for a Strategic Road, it shall be a minimum of 30m;

A railway corridor or designation for railway purposes, it shall be a minimum of 30m.

Provided that: On Secondary Arterial Roads, and any railway corridor or designation for railway purposes, lots created by way of an application for subdivision consent approved prior to 1 January 2010 will be exempt.

(iv) Open Coastal Hazard Protection Yard - for activities within lOOm of MHWS adjoining the open coast for the purpose of Coastal Hazard Mitigation purposes, see Section 8.3.2.

(v) Landward Edge Protection Yard - for controls on activities up to 40m landward of MHWS around the Maketu Estuary and Waihi Estuary, and lOOm landward of MHWS adjoining the Open Coast, see Section 6.4.

(vi) Tauranga Harbour (58), Wairoa River (57) Landscape Management Areas and Matakana Island Landscape Management Area (59) - for controls on activities up to 300m landward of MHWS, see Section 6.4.

@ Standards for clustering of dwellings or lots on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier


3.13 3S.1S

13 November 2014

The purpose of this provision is to enable the clustering of dwellings on Matakana Island forested sand barrier through:

• The on-site clustering of dwellings using the dwelling entitlements of an existing lot. See (i) below.

• The transferring of additional dwelling entitlements from any lot on the forested sand barrier into a cluster. See (ii) below.

(i) Density: One dwelling per 40ha

(ii) Transferring of additional dwelling entitlements: To achieve the clustering of dwellings, an entitlement may be transferred from an existing title (the donor lot) to the title on which the cluster is to be developed (the recipient lot) at a rate of one entitlement per 40ha of land within the "donor" lot.

An Encumbrance shall be registered against the title of the donor lot or balanced land to record the transfer of entitlements to: (a) ensure that the allotment cannot be used for

further subdivision or additional dwellings in future.

(b) record the balance number of lots or dwellings still to be transferred (if applicable).

(~r-tel:-eFiM!erHents: one-riwelliR§--Bf'-if7t fof every 1Dha of the cf7ffiBif!eEI-total area of--atl eJ<isting lo6-an--wfti€1T-t!'!e-aj'>J'llicaBeR-is-13ase€h

(ii) Yards:

• within the cluster - Minimum of 10m • along the outer boundarv of the cluster "

Minimum of 30m

Dill Minimum number of dwe!!inas or lots oer cluster: 10

(iv) The layout of--tfte-cluster or multij'lle clusters shall--flat be of a linear nature.

Cvl The reflectivity of all roofs of all buildinas, excluding solar oanels. shall be no areater than 25% and the reflectivity of all building walls shall be no greater than 35% (as oer the British Standard 855252 Reflectance Value) .

.0Li) Transferrina of develooment rights: To achieve the clusterina of dwellings or lots. a dwelling or subdivision entitlement may be transferred


22

from one existing title (the donor lot) to another existing title (the recipient lot) at a rate of one entitlement per 40ha of land within the "donor'' lot.

An Encumbrance shall be registered against the title of the donor lot or balanced land to record the transfer of entitlements to: (a) ensure that the allotment cannot be used for


(b) record the balance number of lots or dwellings still to be transferred (if necessary).

(vii) Development within the cluster shall be in accordance with a Design and Development Plan approved in coniunction with the granting of a resource consent under rule 18.3.3(f). The Design and Development Plan shall, as a minimum, address the matters included in rule 18.5.8.

(§). Standards for accommodation facilities

(i) Have a maximum occupancy of four persons at any one time (excluding staff);

(ii) The total area available for exclusive use for the occupiers be no greater than 60m2 gross floor area;

(iii) Must not contain a kitchen or otherwise be self contained;

(iv) For Discretionary Accommodation Facilities, information is to be provided in accordance with 4A.6.2.

ffi Restricted Discretionary standards for accommodation facilities and for education facilities on Matakana Island.

ill Maximum combined total of 20 quests or students.

® No building shall exceed a total gross floor area of 200m2

•

.Gill The distance between any two buildings shall be a minimum of 10m.

(iv) The buildinas shall be partially screened from each other. The screening shall be dominated by trees and vegetation above 2m in height to mitigate the


cumulative scale of the accommodation/education

facilities .

.(y) The bui!dinos shall meet the reflectivity standards of rules 6.4.1.3(b)(ii) to liv) .

.0ill Information is to be provided in accordance with 4A.6.2.

Standards for Place of Assembly on Matakana Island.

ill Shall be limited to facilities for recreation activities and tourist facilities .

.(!:tl Standards for home enterprises

(i) Shall be conducted in an area that does not exceed 500m2 of which a maximum of 120m2 shall be available for a building floor area.

Carparks shall be excluded from the maximum area calculation of the activity;

(ii) Does not have access within 30m of a State Highway;

(iii) Is carried out by a maximum of three persons;

(iv) Any retailing shall occur within a floor area not exceeding 20m2;

(v) Does not involve sales of products other than those produced on the site. This does not apply to the sale of any goods stored, distributed and manufactured off the site that are sold via the internet;

(vi) Any advertising shall comply with the relevant provisions of Section 4D.3.1;

(vii) Parking shall be provided in accordance with Rule 48.4.7.

Explanatory Note: The above activity performance standards shall apply cumulatively to all home enterprises per Jot

ill Standards for minor dwellings and dwellings where a minor dwelling was constructed after 9 February 2009 in accordance with 18.3.2(a) and (b)

13 November 2014 Section 18 - Rural 23

24

(i) Shall be located within 20m of the principal dwelling or minor dwelling on the site; and

(ii) Shall share vehicle access with the principal dwelling or minor: dwelling on the site; and

(iii) If an attached or detached garage or carport is to be built, it shall have a gross floor area not exceeding 18m2

; and

(iv) Shall pay 50% of the financial contributions that applies to the subdivision of land.

ill Standards for new Dwellings, addition of habitable space to existing Dwellings, and Accommodation facilities within 200 metres of a Post Harvest Zone

Any new dwelling, addition of a habitable space to an existing dwelling or accommodation facility to be erected within 200m of a Post Harvest Zone boundary shall:

(i) Be designed and constructed so that the internal noise levels do not exceed LAeq(15 min) 30dB in bedrooms and LAeq(15 min) 40dB in other habitable rooms (the night time noise limits for the Post Harvest Zone);

(ii) Written certification from an appropriately qualified persons, to Council's satisfaction that (i) above has been met, shall be submitted with the building consent application;

(iii) Where the windows of the dwellina additional habitable space to an existing dwelling, or accommodation facility are required to be closed to achieved compliance with the noise limits, alternative means of ventilation shall be provided in compliance with clause G4 of the New Zealand Building Code or any subsequent equivalent clause.

Standards for artificial crop protection

(i) Shall have green or black cloth when used vertically· within 30m of the boundary of the property or within the Tauranga Harbour (58), Wairoa River (57) Landscape Management Areas and Matakana Island (59);

(ii) Shall be of any colour when used horizontally;

(iii) Are exempt from yard and daylighting requirements.

Section 18- Rural 13 November 2014

Provided that:

Within 30m of property boundaries, other than any road boundary, a different colour cloth can be used where the written approval of

the owner(s) of the immediately adjoining property is obtained.

Any proposal to situate any artificial crop protection with cloth other than green or black within 30m of a road boundary will require resource consent for a Discretionary Activity.

Explanatory Note: Research indicates that white cloth can cause glare on adjoining neighbours creating a nuisance andjor hazard. These provisions only restrict the colour of cloth used vertically within 30m of

property boundaries, including boundaries adjacent to roads.

ill Standards for Production Forestry and Conservation Forestry (excluding shelterbelts and protection lots planting)

(i) No trunk of any tree shall be located nearer than 10m to the boundary of an adjoining property;

Provided that: Trees may be located closer to the boundary where the written approval of the owner of the immediately adjoining property is obtained.

ill!} Standards for the development of housing on multiple owned Maori land

13 November 2014

(i) Control shall be limited to the assessment of financial contributions; and

(ii) The provision of a papal<ainga site plan approved by Council that addresses:

The provision of access that minimises access points from Council maintained roads;

The location of houses;

Internal roading access;

Location of community facilities;

Location of outdoor community areas;

Section 18- Rural 25

26

.(!1l Fencing

Service provision to existing Council owned and other network utilities .

(i) Goats (Minimum)

1. Bulldozed line.

2. 9 wires (kept tight at all times)

Minimum high tensile 2.5mm diameter galvanised steel.

Bottom wire should be placed 80mm above ground level and, above that, wires placed at following intervals -100, 100, 100, 110, 120, 135, 150 and 165mm. The top wire should be approximately 50mm below the top of the post.

3. No internal stays.

4. Posts to be at the following spaces:

Less than 30° ground slope 5m 30° to less than 45° 4m 45° or more 3m

5. Battens to be at 1m intervals.

(ii) Deer (Minimum)

As specified in the Deer Farming Notice (No 5 2008) of the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 .

.(Q) Quarry Effects Management Area

Dwellings, minor dwellings, accommodation facilities and education facilities (including any additions or alterations to these) shall not be located within a Quarry Effects Management Area.

!f:ll Standards for Rural Contractor Depots

(i) The Rural Contractors Depot is carried out by a maximum of five persons, a minimum of one who shall reside on site, plus a maximum of two additional persons for no more than a six month period during


13 November 2014

the period from 1 July of each year to 30 June of the following year.

(ii) Does not involve the sale of goods from the site, other than those that are sold as an integral component of the rural contracting service provided to the farming industry, whether produced by the Rural Contractor or not.

(iii) Does not have access within 30 metres of a State Highway or Strategic Road.

(iv) All vehicle crossings used as access by the Rural Contractors Depot shall meet all of the relevant standards and standard drawings in Councils Development Code 2009 and shall as a minimum meet standard drawing W437 Diagram B.

(v) The Rural Contractors Depot shall not be located within 60 metres of any existing Dwelling, Minor Dwelling, Education Facility or Accommodation Facility that is located on a title separate to that of the subject site and in different ownership to that of the Rural Contractors Depot operator.

Access01y Buildings

(i) Maximum gross floor area of 200m2 when within a lot of two hectares or less.

(ii) No maximum gross floor area when on lots over two hectares.

Provided that: • Any accessory buildings greater than 200m2

in gross floor area on lots over two hectares shall have a side yard and rear yard of 30m.

Except that:

• An accessory building may be located within a side yard and I or rear yard up to Sm of a side and I or rear boundary where it is not located any closer than 35m to any existing dwelling, minor dwelling, accommodation facility, education facility, approved building site - natural hazards, and I or approved building site in accordance with Rule 12.4.1 (b), that is located on a title separate to that of the subject site.

Section 18- Rural '1.7

28

• An accessory building may be located within a side yard and I or rear yard up to a side and I or rear boundary where the written approval of the owner of the immediately adjoining property to a specified lesser distance is obtained.

• As provided for in Rule 18.4.1( c)(iii)·(vi) .

.(tl National Grid Electricity Transmission Buffers

Note: •

•

•

Non-compliance with (i) to (iii) below shall require a resource consent for a Non-Complying Activity. For the purpose of the notification provisions of the RMA, Transpower shall be an affected person, and any application for consent need not be publicly notified. Council will have discretion over whether to publicly notify any application. All activities (whether listed below or not) located under or adjacent to transmission Jines must comply with the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances. Compliance with the District Plan rules does not ensure compliance with the Code.

(i) Activities around transmission structures (towers or poles)

Section 18 · Rural

Buildings/structures (including additions and alterations), artificial crop protection structures and horticultural crop support structures shall not be located within 12m of the outer edge of a transmission structure associated with a transmission line shown on the Planning Maps;

Except that: (a) Artificial crop protection and horticultural

crop support structures can be located within 8m-1Zm of the outer edge of a single pole (not tower) provided it:. • is no more than 2.5m high; and • is removable or temporary, to allow

a clear working space 12m from the pole when necessary for maintenance purposes; and

• is located a sufficient distance from the pole to provide for unimpeded access for maintenance equipment, including a crane.

13 November 2014

13 November 2014

(b) Artificial crop protection and horticultural crop support structures can be closer than Sm from a pole or 12m from a tower where Transpower New Zealand Limited gives its written approval in accordance with clause 2.4.1 of NZECP34:2001.

(c) Fences can be located within 5m-12m from the outer edge of a support structure provided they comply with NZECP34:2001

(ii) Activities under conductors (wires)

(a) Within the National Grid Electricity Transmission Buffer the following (including any additions or alterations) shall not be located:

• Dwellings/ • Minor dwe!lings., • Accommodation facilities/ • Education facilities, • Milking shed buildings (excluding

the surrounding platform and any stockyards).

(b) Within the National Grid Electricity Transmission Buffer the following shall be no closer than 10m in a vertical direction from the conductor associated with a transmission line shown on the Planning Maps unless they otherwise comply with NZECP34 2001: • Buildings/structures associated with

horticultural and farming activities, • Artificial crop protection and

horticultural crop support structures

(iii) Earthworks and Quarrying

(a) Earthworks and Quarrying Around Poles

Earthworks and quarrying shall not be:

(i) deeper than 300mm within 2.2m of a transmission pole support structure or stay wire; or

(ii) deeper than 750mm between 2.2m -Sm from a transmission pole support structure or stay wire.

Section 18 - Rural

3('1

Except that: Vertical holes not exceeding 500mm diameter beyond 1.5m from the outer edge of a pole support structure or stay wire are exempt from (i) and (ii) above.

(b) Earthworks and Quarrying Around Towers

Earthworks and quarrying shall not be:

(i) deeper than 300mm within 6m of the outer visible edge of a transmission tower support structure; or

(ii) deeper than 3m between 6m - 12m from the outer visible · edge of a transmission tower support structure.

(c) Earthworks and Quarrying within the National Grid Electricity Transmission Buffer

Earthworks and quarrying shall not:

(i) create an unstable batter that will affect a transmission support structure; and/or

(ii) result in a reduction in the ground to conductor clearance distances as required by NZECP34:2001.

Provided that: • Earthworks undertaken by a Network Utility

operator in accordance with NZECP34; or • Earthworks undertaken as part of normal

agricultural cultivation or the repair, sealing or resealing of a road (includinQ farm track), footpath or driveway

are exempt from (a) and (b) above.

Transportation, Access, Parking and Loading - See Section 48.

Noise and Vibration - See Section 4C.l.

Storage and Disposal of Solid Waste - See Section 4C.2.

Lighting and Welding -See Section 4C.3. ·

Off~nsive Odours, Effluent Aerosols and Spray Drift - See Section 4C.4.


18.4.2

00 Screening - See Section 4C.5.

f¥} Signs - See Section 40.

~ Natural Environment- See Section 5.

@g) landscape - See Section 6 .

.@.!tl Historic Heritage - See Section 7 .

.@f) Natural Hazards -See Section 8.

@ill. Hazardous Substances - See Section 9 .

.@.§} Financial Contributions- See Section 11.

Subdivision Activity Performance Standards (see Section 12)

(a) General

(i) Shape factor

Each lot which will qualify for the erection of a dwelling as a Permitted Activity shall be capable of accommodating a 20m diameter circle exclusive of yard requirements, such area to contain a building site complying with 12.4.1 (b);

(ii) Conflict with intensive farming activities

Each lot shall be located no closer than 300m from an existing intensive farming activity.

(iii) Conflict with quarrying

(iv)

All identified house sites shall be located outside of a Quarry Effects Management Area.

Conflict with National Grid Electricity Transmission Buffer

Lots that have a National Grid Electricity Transmission Buffer located on them shall have an identified house site and an additional separate building site (in terms of the requirements of 12.3.7(e)). Such sites shall not be located within the National Grid Electricity Transmission Buffer. Furthermore if such sites are located between this buffer and a distance of 37m


32

from the centreline of the Kaitemako Transmission Line or 16m from the centreline of the Te Matai Transmission Line, Transpower shall be considered an affected party to ensure compliance with NZECP34.

See also 1Z.3.8(p) Subdivision Information Requirements -Application Report.

•

•

Non-compliance with the above shall require a resource consent for a NonComplying Activity. For the purpose of the notification provisions of the RMA, Transpower shall be an affected person, and any application for consent need not be publicly notified. Council will have discretion over whether to publicly notify any application. All activities (whether listed above or not) located under or adjacent to transmission lines must comply with the New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances. Compliance with the District Plan rules does not ensure compliance with the Code.

(b) General farming lots

(i) Minimum Jot size (including any balance area or residual Jot)- 40ha;

(ii) Limitation.

This rule shall not apply to titles created by way of a boundary adjustment for which a resource consent application was lodged after 7 February 2009 and which would not have qualified for subdivision under this rule prior to the boundary adjustment occurring.

(c) Rural production lots

Existing rural Jots may be subdivided to create one or more Rural Production Lots subject to the following standards and criteria relating to either productive land or land containing a productive

crop:

Productive Land:

(i) Shall contain a minimum of 6ha.

(ii) Shall be located Jess than 200m above MHWS.


' :

13 November 2014

(iii) Each Rural Production Lot shall be suitable for the successful growing of permanent horticulture crops in

the prevailing climatic conditions.

(iv) Shall have the following characteristics:

Soil texture; silt loam, sandy loam, loam, loamy sand (in the topsoil 15cm) Potential rooting depth: minimum one metre Drainage Class: well-drained Profile readily available water (0 - 100cm): moderate (greater or equal to 50mm)

Topsoil (top 15 em) bulk density: less than or equal to 0.90 g/cm3 Subsoil (below 15 em) bulk density: less than or equal to 1.00 gjcm3

Topsoil (top 15cm) organic matter: minimum 5% No point exceeding 15 degree slope No more than 20% of the productive land shall be facing 45 degrees either side of South (south eastto south west).

(v) Each application shall be accompanied by a report/s completed by a person/s qualified and experienced in local soils and horticulture production. The report as a minimum shall:

Productive Crop:

Certify that the land concerned meets (i) to (iv) above; Provide comment on effects of drainage,

climatic conditions, previous or current land use, any limitations and any cumulative effects; Recommendations for any remedial work.

(vi) The above provisions, (ii) to (iv) shall not be required to be met where each Rural Production Lot is a minimum of 6ha and no less than 70% of that area is planted in a productive crop which must be certified or other evidence provided.

General:

(vii) One balance lot complying with the relevant provisions of Section 12 (Subdivision) but which does not meet

section 18- Rural 33l

34

the requirements of clauses (i) and (vi) above may be created, provided that:

the average area of all lots within the pr0posed subdivision shall be at least 6ha, and

In the case of an application to subdivide land previously subdivided under this rule, the area of the original parent property shall be used for the purposes of calculating average lot size and only one noncomplying balance lot may be created from the land within the original property.

(viii) Where any new lot created under this rule will contain more than one existing dwelling (excluding minor dwellings), no such dwelling may be used as the basis for a subsequent subdivision under the Additional Dwelling Lot rule. A consent notice condition to this effect will be registered on the title of the lot concerned;

(ix) Limitation -this rule shall not apply to titles created by way of a boundary adjustment for which a resource consent application was lodged after 30 January 2010 and which would not have quaTffiea-for subdivision under this rule prior to the boundary adjustment occurring.

(d) Transferable rural lot entitlements

Explanatory Note: The purpose of this provision is to allow existing lots that meet age of title and size criteria to obtain a transferable rural lot entitlement for use in the Lifestyle Zone.

(i) Qualifying existing lot

Section 18 - Rural

To qualify for a Transferable Rural Lot entitlement the existing lot must meet the following criteria:

1. Have a title that existed prior to 1 August 1992 or which has been created by way of a subdivision consent for which an application was lodged prior to that date; and

2. Is at least 4ha in area;

or

13 November 2014

3. Has been created by way of a subdivision

consent for which an application was lodged

on or after 1 August 1992 but before 22

November 1997, and

4. Is at least Bha in area;

Provided that: Other lots shall qualify under this rule where it can be

demonstrated that the title was created following

consent to a boundary adjustment and that prior to such adjustment a similar entitlement to subdivision of

the previous lot (as determined by Council) would have

complied with the foregoing limitation and all other

requirements of this rule.

(ii) Number of entitlements

The maximum number of transferable entitlements

able to be obtained from existing lots which qualify

under this rule shall be as follows:

lots less than 30ha - one entitlement;

lots 30ha or more -two entitlements.

(iii) To be able to exercise the transferable entitlement the

qualifying existing lot shall have registered against its

title a Memorandum of Encumbrance which specifies

that the transferable entitlement has been exercised and no further entitlement is obtainable.

(e) Transferable amalgamation lots

13 November 2014

Explanatory Note: The purpose of this provision is to encourage the aggregation of

existing rural lots into larger land parcels in return for the granting

of a transferable amalgamation lot entitlement for use in the

Lifestyle Zone or to create a lot around an existing additional

dwelling under the Additional Dwelling Lots Rule.

In both cases, a copy of the new title for the amalgamated land will be required to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of an RMA section 224(c) certificate for the subdivision creating the new lot

To qualify for a Transferable Amalgamation Lot the lots being

amalgamated must:

1.

2.

Exist as at 7 February 2009 or have subdivision

consent as at 7 February 2009.

Qualify for the erection of a dwelling in accordance with the performance standards of the District Plan.


36

3. The final amalgamated lot contains no more than one dwelling.

4. A Memorandum of Encumbrance will be required to be registered against the title of the amalgamated lot so as to prevent further re-subdivision.

(f) Additional dwelling lots

A Transferable Amalgamation Lot entitlement or an entitlement created under 18.4.2(h)(iii)3(b) may be used to create a lot around an existing additional dwelling subject to compliance with the following standards: (i) Maximum lot size - lha, provided that as a Restricted

Discretionary Activity the lot size may be increased on the basis that existing physical constraints such as the location of the dwelling (including vehicle access thereto) on the subject land and the nature of the subject land itself, render it impractical to comply with a maximum lot size· of lha. In any such case, Council's discretion shall be restricted to:

The extent to which for physical reasons it is impractical, unreasonable or otherwise undesirable to limit the size of the lot to lha;

The extent to which the amount of versatile land (as described in the Rural Production Lots rule) within the lot has been or is able to be minimised.

A restricted discretionary application under this rule need not be publicly notified nor notice of it served on any other persons.

(ii) Qualifying additional dwellings

Section 18 - Rural

To qualify to be used as the basis for a subdivision under this rule the existing additional dwelling must have been lawfully established either by way of a specific resource consent for an additional dwelling or by virtue of having existing use rights under Section 10 of the RMA (excluding minor dwellings in both cases), provided that no existing additional dwelling on a lot created under the Rural Production Lots rule shall qualify for subdivision under this rule.

13 November 2014

(iii) Other matters over which control may be exercised

Financial contributions, limited to tile difference between the current level of such contributions and any contributions previously paid;

Any relevant matters in Section 12 -Subdivision;

Any new or increased non-compliance with the rural yards rule.

(iv) New title for amalgamated land

Prior to the issue of an RMA Section 224(c) certificate for a subdivision creating an Additional Dwelling Lot under this rule, a copy of the new certificate of title for the land amalgamated pursuant to the Transferable Amalgamation Lots rule shall be submitted to Council.

(g) Separation lots

13 November 2014

Separation lots may be created by subdividing an existing land title where each proposed lot is and will remain totally separated and inaccessible from other land within the subdivision by:

(i) A permanent watercourse not less than 10m in width; or

(ii) A State Highway or an existing legal public road currently maintained by Council or formed to the relevant standard specified in Table 2 of Rule 12.4.4.2; or

(iii) An operational railway; or

(iv) A severe or substantial natural landform feature such as a cliff, ravine or the like.

Protection lots

In exchange for the protection of an Identified Significant Feature

as defined in this District Plan or other existing features of value to the community additional lots over and above what other rural subdivision rules provide for may be created.

(i) Application


1.1 PC39 Appeal Note #4

38

Additional lots from a qualifying existing lot or Transferable Protection Lot credits may be created in conjunction with the legal protection in perpetuity of a significant natural or other existing feature of value to the community as follows:

Rural Zone - maximum of 5 additional lots. The feature to be protected must be within the land being subdivided.

Transferable credits are subject to clause (vi) of this rule.

In this context a "feature of value to the community" is deemed to be:

1. An Identified Significant Feature as specified in the District Plan (see Appendices 1, '2,

and 3).

'2. Other features subject to clause (iv) of this rule. This may include previously degraded ecological sites that through enhancement or restoration can at the time of application be proven to meet the requirements of clause (iv).

Explanatory Note: Enhancement means improving the existing qualities and values of an area that are ecological, cultural, and/or related to amenity.

Restoration will have a corresponding meaning. In the context terms of a protection Jot, enhancement or restoration means improvement to a level which meets the qualifying criteria for ecological features set out in section 18.4.'2(h)(iv)'2.

(ii) Qualifying standards for controlled onsite protection lot subdivision

Section 18 - Rural

1. To qualify for an onsite protection Jot subdivision, the lot to be created shall meet the following criteria:

(i) Up to· two additional lots on a sealed road;

(ii) Rural Zone - be a maximum of 1ha;

13 November 2014

35.16

. '

13 November 2014

(iii) Does not gain access directly to a State Highway.

2. The Transferable Protection Lot Credit may only be transferred into the Lifestyle Zone

(iii) Qualifying feature

1. This rule shall apply to features according to their respective lot boundaries as existed at 1 August 1992.

2. Within the subject title, where the feature concerned exceeds the size criteria in (iv) 2. or (vi) below then the entire feature shall be protected under this rule.

3. Where the feature being protected is capable of realising more than one protection lot, credits will be given for additional lots. These credits ·are able to be used in the Lifestyle Zone only.

(a) For credits created on or after 30 January 2010, the credits will expire five years from the date of issue of the consent or five years after the date that the Minden Lifestyle Zone Structure Plan becomes operative, whichever is the later

(b) For credits created prior to 30

(iv) Certification

Section 18 - Rural

January 2010 the following applies:

(i) The credit will expire ten years from the date of the Minden Lifestyle Zone Structure Plan being made operative (16 June 2012).

(ii) Thirty percent of the total credits (calculated per donor lot) may be used in conjunction with Rule 18.4.2(f).

40 Section 18 - Rural

1. In the case of those Identified Significant Ecological Features referred to in Appendix 1 of the District Plan or of other ecological features, certification from an appropriately qualified independent person that the feature in question meets the criteria in 2. below shall . be submitted with the application for subdivision consent.

(i) In the case of Viewshafts referred to in Appendix 2 and Identified Significant Historic Heritage Features referred to in Appendix 3 certification from an appropriately qualified independent person that the feature in question still exists in terms of the description as provided in the respective Appendix shall be submitted with the application for subdivision consent.

(ii) In the case of features of community benefit, certification from an appropriately qualified independent person that the feature in question meets the criteria in 3. below shall be submitted with the application for subdivision consent.

(iii) Such certification shall be accompanied by a report prepared by the certifier detailing the attributes of the feature recommended for preservation and include a management plan specifying any protective or enhancement measures deemed necessary.

2. Criteria for ecological features

The feature must be assessed in the context of the relevant ecological district, bioclimatic zone and landform type. Each feature is required to rank highly on three or more of the following criteria:

13 November 2014

13 November 2014

(i) Representativeness - the extent to which an area is characteristic or representative of natural diversity;

(ii) Diversity and pattern diversity of species community types;

the and

(iii) Shape - larger areas with a compact shape are more likely to be ecologically viable;

(iv) Ecological viability and sustainability - the likelihood of an area remaining ecologically viable and the management input necessary for long term sustainability;

(v) Naturalness degree of modification as compared with likely original unmodified character.

(vi) Rarity and special features -presence of rare community types, species or other rare features;

(viii) Fragility and threat - threat processes or agents (actual or potential) that are likely to destroy or substantially modify the feature, and the vulnerability of the feature to damage;

(ix) Ecological context - the extent to which an area is buffered from modifying influences, or provides a key buffer for other ecological areas, or the connectivity role that site provides for the wider landscape;

(x) Long term viability- the extent to which the features of the area will maintain themselves in the long term.

Explanatory Note:


42 Section 18 - Rural

Riparian areas only need to meet criteria (v) and (ix) above to quality.

The following table shows minimum feature size dependant on whether the feature is listed in the District Plan as significant or whether it can be identified as an 'other feature' subject to 18.4.2(h), (i) and (iv).

Features smaller than the minimums below can be considered as Non-Complying Activities:

Secondary Shrub

Land

Riparian margins

Wetlands (above

Explanatory Note:

Sha lOha

SOOm in length and 20m wide

O.Sha surrounded by a 10m

Riparian areas are measured from 20m landward of the stream edge on one side. When a stream is wholly contained within one title this can be measured on each side.

3. Criteria for features of community benefit

(i) The feature must provide for expansion of an existing reserve, or access (not otherwise shown in the District Plan) to an existing or proposed reserve or esplanade reserve. The acceptance of such applications is at Council's sole discretion.

(ii) The minimum size and multiple lot

entitlement is the same as for the following ecological features:

Access equates to Riparian Margins

13 November 2014

13 November 2014

(v) Buffering on Wetlands

Expansion of reserves equates to Wetlands.

(i) Wetlands less than 2ha require a minimum of 10m indigenous buffer (larger areas may be required where topography dictates). This buffer must be established prior to being eligible for a protection lot;

(ii) Wetlands greater than or equal to 2ha require a buffer area of a suitable width prescribed by the certifying ecologist and must be established prior to obtaining Section 224 consent.

(vi) Number of lots

One lot for every separate feature type as set out in clauses (i) and (iv) of this rule. Multiple lots will be allowed based on feature type, whether the feature is listed as significant or as an 'other feature', and the feature size. The following tables show the feature sizes required in hectares and the total number of corresponding multiple protection lots that can be obtained.

Multiple Lots Features listed as significant in the District Plan:

Feature Size ~

Feature Type Requirement per lot .

' ~' "

Tall Forest 6ha Regenerating Forest 8ha Secondary Shrub/and lOha Riparian Margins lkm Wetlands lha

Multiple Lots for Features not listed as

• 'fi t. th o· t . t PI ... " . ,.

Feature Type Feature Size Requirement per Jot

"'-" "" "" . Ta/! Forest 10ha Re_qenerating Forest 16ha Secondary Shrub/and 20ha Riparian Margins 1km Wetlands 1ha


44

(vii) Legal protection

Legal protection of the feature shall be achieved by way of a condition imposed on the subdivision consent requiring a Consent Notice, Memorandum of Encumbrance or similar legal instrument such as a QEII Covenant, Heritage Covenant, or the vesting of land into crown or territorial authority ownership. The type of instrument and the level of protection provided by it must be to the satisfaction of the Council and where relevant is to be registered on the title of the land containing the feature to be protected. All costs associated with compliance with this requirement shall be met by the applicant;

(viii) Exclusions

This rule shall not apply to any land that has been designated in the District Plan (for any purpose), or is classified under the Reserves Act 1997, or is subject to the Conservation Act 1987.

ill Subdivision relating to~~~~ clustering of dwellings or lots on the Matakana Island forested sand barrier and the transferring of subdivision entitlements.

The purpose of this provision is to enable the clustering of lots on Matakana Island forested sand barrier through:

• The on-site clustering of lots using the lot entitlements of an existing lot. See (i) below.

• The transferring of additional lot entitlements from any lot on the forested sand barrier into a cluster. See (ii) below.

(i) Lot entitlements: Density of one lot for every 40ha.

(ii) Transferring of additional lot entitlements:

Section 18 - Rural

To achieve the clustering of lots, an entitlement may be transferred from an existing title (the donor lot) to the title on which the cluster is to be developed (the recipient lot) at a rate of one entitlement fler 40ha of land witl1in the "donor" lot.

An Encumbrance shall be registered on against the titles of all of the land parcels involved (including any balance area) the donor lot or balance land to record the transfer of entitlements to: (a) ensure that the allotment cannot be used for


13 November 2014

18.5

18.5.1

18.5.2

(b) .record the balance number of Jots or dwellings still to be transferred (if applicable).

(iii) The maximum size of a lot accommodating a dwelling

shall be lha.

Civ) The cluster shall meet the activity performance standards included in 18.4.1(d)fiii)- (vii).

(i) Sul9clfv.ieieA-SflaU-ae-ifl-a€€erciaAre-wl#Hfle-r-elateEI--IaftEI tt5e-€efl5effi'o

W =Re-ffia7&flt!~et-a€€6fflffiesil00§ a cfwelling

shall-!3e--±fla.

(iii) An eRa~fRI3Faflee-shall-se-J'e§ister€€1-an--t.fle-ffiles-af-aH ef--{fle---laf!cl--j3ar-eels involvecl (inc/uelin~ee

area)-to--reeor-€1--1i!e-tTaRsfeF-eF-ef!til'lemeffis-to+ ~e-alletFRent--c-i!flfl6t-13e--us€El--fef

fuftAe~aclivisiefl---0f--aclEiitieRal-€weHiflgs-ift

future: fb) recoffi--tfle---OOlance n urnaer-ef-!ets-oHlweflfn§s

still w be-tfansl'errecl (if necessary).


Restricted Discretionary Activities - General

With respect to a Restricted Discretionary Activity or any Permitted or Controlled Activity which fails to comply with any activity performance standard listed in 18.4, Council's discretion is restricted to the actual or potential adverse effects

arising from the particular non-compliance, having regard to the extent and nature of the non-compliance.

Restricted Discretionary Assessment Criteria - Development of 11-30 Houses on Multiple Owned Maori Land

With respect to the development of between 11- 30 houses on multiple owned Maori land Council's discretion is restricted to the following:

(a)

(b)

Assessment of financial contributions; and

The provision of a structure plan approved by Council that addresses:

(i) Provision of house sites;

13 November 2014 Section 18 -Rural 45

18.5.3

46

(ii) Structures other than dwellings;

(iii) Description of the character, scale and intensity of activities proposed to use any papakainga community facility building or buildings;

(iv) Location of areas to be allocated to any non-residential activity or group of activities;

(v) Areas of the site proposed to be devoted to rural productive activities;

(vi) Location of any waste water, water supply, roading, stormwater services and associated equipment, reticulation and facilities;

(vii) The provision of compliant vehicle and pedestrian accessways from the site to Council maintained roads;

(viii) Provision of internal vehicle access, parking and walkways, including the surface material and whether this will be loose or sealed, and construction standards;

(ix) Landscaping by either land form shaping, planting or artificial screening;

(x) The extent and effect of earthworks;

(xi) Areas of any native plantings or bush on the site;

(xii) Location of any property boundaries (including internal) in instances where the site is proposed to comprise more than one title and boundaries of any licenses to occupy or lease or other forms of establishing areas of exclusive occupation to particular individuals or groups.

Assessment Criteria for Activities failing to Meet Rule 18.4.1(c) Minimum Yard Requirements

Council shall have regard to the following matters in addition to relevant matters stated in 18.4.

(a) Due to size, shape, topographical or geotechnical constraints, it is not practicable to meet the yard requirements.

(b) The location of archaeological sites or other Identified Signifiqmt Heritage or Ecological Features makes it not practicable to meet the yard requirements.

· Section 18 - Rural 13 November 2014

18.5.4

18.5.5

(c) The potential for conflict with existing and foreseeable activities in the area.

(d) Compliance with the yard requirements will result in a significant constraint on maximising the productive use of the site.

(e) Compliance with the yard requirements will result in an adverse visual effect on the low density rural character of the area by forcing the dwelling into a visually prominent position such as a ridgeline.

(f) Separation distances from other dwellings and any resultant loss of privacy of adjoining dwellings.

(g) In regard to the front yard whether the road is sealed or unsealed.

(h) In regard to the front yard adjoining Old Coach Road (between the entrance to Cameron's Quarry and State Highway 2) whether any potential for conflict between activities and the use of the road for heavy vehicles can be avoided through the design and construction

of buildings to restrict noise levels within any habitable room to a reasonable level.

Assessment Criteria for Activities Failing to Meet Rule 18.4.1(Q) Quarry Effects Management Area

In relation to activities within the Quarry Effects Management Area, the location and design of the activity in relation to the effects of the quarry operation and the measures taken to ensure that these effects on the occupants are adequately avoided, remedied and mitigated.

Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities failing to meet Rule 18.4.2(a)(ii) Intensive Farming Separation Distance

Council shall have regard to the following matters:

(a) Assessment of the potential for odour, fly and noise effects. (b) The location of lots and house sites in relation to the intensive

farming activity.

(c) The extent of avoidance and mitigation measures.

Assessment Criteria for Discretionary Activities failing to meet Rule 18.4.1(.K) Artificial Crop Protection

Council shall have regard to the following matters:

Assessment of the potential glare on neighbouring properties from the colour of the cloth.


18.5.7

18.5.8

48

Assessment Criteria for !buildings not meeting 18.4.1(g)

(a) The extent to which the proposed building can be screened from neighbouring properties.

(b) The extent to which the activity has the potential to adversely affect the visual amenity provided by the rural environment.

(c) The intended use of the proposed building is appropriate for the Rural Zone.

Assessment Criteria for Restricted Discretionary Activities on Matakana Island, including the clustering of dwellings or lots on the forested sand !barrier

Council shall restrict its discretion to the following:

ta1 he ITIOtieFs referred to in Objective 10 and Poliey--1&

(b) The location and design of the clusters of dwellings or lots on the forested sand barrier, including the extent of, and any adverse effecls created by, development of a linear nature,

Cc) The sustainability of water, wastewater, electricity, telecommunication and solid waste removal provisions.

(d) The provision of safe and legal access for landowners and the effect on the existing access rights of surrounding landowners,

(e) The impact of development (including earthworks) on the natural environment, landscaoe, cultural. historic heritage and archaeological values, including methods of management, protectio·n and enhancement where appropriate.

{f) Avoidance or minimisation of the risk to life and damage to property from natural hazards,

(g) The social, afl€1 cultural and economic impact on the existing Island community,

(h) How existing areas of ecological value will be enhanced and maintained,

(i) How the introduction of pest plants and animals will be minimised and managed,

(j) The impact on the existing rural character and amenity values of Matakana Island as viewed from within the Island, the mainland


18.5.9

(particularly from Bowentown and Mauao), open coast and the Harbour.

(k) How the development will co-exist with the orodudion forestty ooerations.

(I) The provision of convenient access for the ex;snng Island community to the open coast Panepane and sites of cultural significance.

(m) Roading ownershio, construction and on-going maintenance.

(n) Potential for conflict with existing and foreseeable activities in the area. In iustifving any location where potential for conflict and other adverse effects arise, consideration should be made of possible alternative locations and the need to be in the specific area chosen.

(o) Traffic Generation Impact on roading including traffic safety; Access; Effect on amenity.

(o) Scale of the activitv including number of people and l1ow this affects the existing character and amenity values.

Discretionary and Non-Complying Activity Criteria -General

The assessment and management of effects shall include the following matters in addition to relevant matters stated in ±&4 18.5.1- 18.5.8:

(a) Relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan.

(b) The extent of the loss of land with high production potential.;

(c) Potential for conflict with existing and foreseeable activities in the area.

In justifying any location where potential for conflict and other adverse effects arise, consideration should be made of possible alternative locations and the need to be in the specific area chosen.

(d) Traffic Generation

Impact on roading including traffic safety; Access; Effect on amenity.


(e) Scale of the activity including number of people carrying out the activity, the hours of operation and how this affects the existing rural character and amenity values.

(f) Proposed signs.

(g) The extent to which the activity has the potential to adversely affect the visual amenity provided by the rural environment and the ability to avoid or mitigate such impact by screening or other appropriate measures.

(h) The background sound level of the surrounding environment and whether the best practicable option of reducing noise emissions has been utilised by rural activities which exceed the relevant noise

· limits in these District Plan rules. In addition how the character of the noise differs from that which is being experienced in the surrounding environment.

(i) In relation to activities within the Quarry Effects Management Area,

the location and design of the activity in relation to the effects of the quarry operation and the measures taken to ensure occupants are adequately protected from those effects.

G) In relation to activities within the National Grid Electricity

Transmission Buffers:

•

•

the safety of the proposed activity (with reference to compliance with NZECP34 2001), and the effects on the National Grid, including potential reverse sensitivity effects, and whether the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines is compromised.

For the purpose of the notification prov1s1ons of the Resource

Management Act; Transpower shall be an affected person, and any application for consent need not be publicly notified. Council will have discretion over whether to notify any application.

18.5.10 Discretionary Activities Criteria for the Development 31 Houses or More on Multiple owned Maori Land

50

(a) All developmen/5 on multiple owned Maori land that result in a cumulative total of 31 houses or more shall be designed in general accordance with a Council approved structure plan and Council has full discretion to assess the development application and decide whether the development proposal is in general accordance with the structure plan.

(b) Developments failing to comply with the structure plan shall be a Non-Complying Activity.


18.!5.11 Assessment Criteria for Rural Production lots

(a) Restricted Discretionary Activities

13 November 2014

Council shall restrict its discretion to the following matters and shall use them as a guide for Discretionary Rural Production Lot

subdivision:

(i) The design and layout of the subdivision shall be in a manner which ensures that the minimum 6ha within each Rural Production Lot shall be in a configuration which allows all of the land to be capable of being used for· permanent horticultural production in accordance with good industry practice.

It is recognised that a Rural Production Lot may include an identified house site and accessory

buildings, loading bays, crop plantings, shelterbelts, access ways and headlands;

(ii) That the subdivision does not compromise the use and viability of the land for horticultural production;

(iii) For subdivision of an existing horticultural lot; Council

must be satisfied that each Rural Production Lot contains a productive crop;

(iv) Where the subdivision relies on a productive crop and the canopy/cropping area is less than 70% of the minimum required productive land area Council needs to be satisfied that any remaining land is productive land.

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

The amount of earthworks required to enable the land to be of a suitable topography for horticultural practises, where the earthworks will exceed 3000m2

and/or involve cuts and fill exceeding 0.5 metres in height then Council must be satisfied that the land will be capable of containing a viable permanent horticultural crop on completion of the earthworks.

Any effects on natural flow paths, streams, watercourses or vegetation which may occur as a result of the re-contouring.

Notification - an application under this rule need not be publically notified nor notice of it served on any persons.

Section 18 -Rural 51

cos Rural Series

== 0 21]0 41!0

Aspects of the District Plan that relate specifically to Matakana Island remain subject to AppeaL Refer to the front of


Scale 1:25000 (A4)

Western Bay of Plenty i!istrfut f:rmncff


cos

cos Rural Series

Aspects of the District Plan that relate specificatly to Mala kana Island remain subject to Appeal. Refer to the front of


Western Bay of Plenty Dis-trict {'r>J'i!;;i!

C05

to be

Asp eels of the District Plan that relate specifically to Matakana Island remain subject to Appeal. Refer to the front of


C04

~sa ;,; :s·s : .I~ .. ,._ ··~

'\ • $,

Aspects of the District Plan that rela!e specifically to Matakana Island remain subject to Appeal. Refer to the front of


B

~ t----r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--~ J h:~-L-------r-----------------------------------------------------------.;;;;~=;===;------~--------------_1--~

C04 R 1.1 r a I s e r i e s Western Bay of Plenty Df;fri':/ t:tomr1·fl


C04

before the environment court decision no. [2015] nzenvc … · 2017. 3. 26. · introduction these...

Documents